Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt

Scott Rose <scottr.nist@gmail.com> Fri, 15 April 2011 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <scottr.nist@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FEAE0840 for <dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lH1-0HKMHmLE for <dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42169E0699 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so2244038wwa.13 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Eg+bUuEAFo2hVBZmZjLNCrBbsNWUiI2zTkT1w1JgyKU=; b=fWz0d/qIJ+iWcUltdxNNLJryV3OZSr0NSUd+qXP39JJNHISy7uKGqmSu/QOdb5KzKY xzt+XaF1XM+EaGLnyiVP2mjujeeaUfkYZpqxKl5IOvIUr6d13HCjt2ppDXf86eqvY5u2 mgfJBYBYrQ4jM4oyGd60MBxXlS59NNMZQZ6TM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; b=GKG0zC025GQMEAI7zW2kgXH86mtJVcy4dMryddO2nX5N5N4RuXonE9/Y9RsW+mnpjF Tlpv+XcZW2I3+0VVwYEN9vnNxFXM8LL5SpYVTZKga1s06bwVRbXAM688LVnXJZ67n8em bGLIWJNAnnGWNMHuVPgGFeoX4iQ+gJpjr2vUM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.24.73 with SMTP id w51mr2056992wew.72.1302880593627; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.88.131 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110413151032.GK24471@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110413151032.GK24471@shinkuro.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:16:33 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikO4uM11gJUDO2qEqTga2U2SSocHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Rose <scottr.nist@gmail.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f1a194f7cbcb04a0f6867c
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: scott.rose@nist.gov
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:16:38 -0000

I have read the draft and support it being published.

That said, should this doc update RFC 1035 and/or RFC 2672(bis)?  There is a
fine line between "clarifying" and "updating".  This isn't a show-stopper
IMHO, but since this clarification is important to implementors, it probably
should be noted.

Scott

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> This message starts a two-week WGLC on the draft
> draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt.  While we did not formally
> take the step of adopting that I-D as a WG document, it is
> sufficiently related to the topic of RFC2672bis that your chairs
> believe it should be processed at the same time.
>
> Please review the draft.  If you support publication, please state as
> much on the list.  If you are opposed to publication, please state
> that on the list as well.  It is more helpful to have your reasons for
> your position as part of your statement.
>
> According to the usual DNSEXT convention, we require at least five
> reviews in favour of publication in order to proceed.  Five supportive
> reviewers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication
> (i.e. evidence of significant opposition counts against a measure of
> rough consensus).
>
> The WGLC will end on 2011-04-27 at 21:00 UTC.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew (as document shepherd)
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>