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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

I'm fine either way but I suppose it would make it easier to find if
it claimed to update those RFCs.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Scott Rose <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> Shinkuro, Inc.