Re: [dnsext] CDS RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 29th

[Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, George Barwood wrote:

>> So this is the sole reason for adding this new type?
>
> There are 4 reasons given, why do you quote only one?

Actually, the TEMPLATE provides no reasons at all why the three 
previously-assigned RR types with the exact same format don't meet the 
need.  Field F in the template needs to include that analysis, whether 
or not it is also in the draft.

I pointed this out in my previous comments on November 16th, and it 
appears that the template is unchanged.

Please update the template.  From today's discussion, it looks like it 
also needs to include analysis of why DNSKEY and all of the other key 
and hash records won't meet the need, too.

(Note that I'm not arguing that we don't need a new type for this, 
just pointing out that this template hasn't met the minimum bar of 
saying why we do.  There's likely some very short language that would 
do the trick, but you do need to include it.)

-- Sam