Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis
Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Wed, 14 December 2005 01:32 UTC
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EmLVn-0001zH-Jd for dnsext-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:32:55 -0500
Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05385 for <dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:31:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1EmLTb-00003I-6u for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:30:39 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
Received: from [204.152.187.5] (helo=farside.isc.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>) id 1EmLTa-000036-Mi for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:30:38 +0000
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost.isc.org [IPv6:::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1A1E6047 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:30:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBE1UaVO054220 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:30:36 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200512140130.jBE1UaVO054220@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:06:17 CDT." <6.2.5.6.2.20051213190224.02e7c310@ogud.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:30:36 +1100
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt Section 2 you dropped the description of the first 4 octets of the KEY record but you left them in the diagram. I would suggest that they be removed from the diagram. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt Both need a section describing the change from the RFC's they are obsoleting. Something stating that it doesn't change the wire format of KEY RR's it mearly extends the use to also cover DNSKEY. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org -- to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
- Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis Mark Andrews
- RE: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis Eastlake III Donald-LDE008