Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 09 March 2011 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4433A6969 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:31:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROwE+3JZw1Fo for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC733A6943 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:31:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so1102194iwl.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:32:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mxsh7K9mQdV4lYx8tOz6bGemsPHcj6M2LTyneJOza60=; b=KMoI1895hlkUiWBO0OXjq3iakscewmhZLeJFvnl1XrZimQxyjBl+Az0ljamRV4zyAN bUAs6OZtIBnuwIsaR4KV5SH+6YUX/9AdGBBz0tQJRNsaFTXQafUoLJx9RcO1/lVEPu2k DMs72aqJtLH2zxUIQw+cck0Seb5OG+NfAeKoc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=eLmZtq30ZQz87ZfA3aV+n3ftQfSFqb+8DP65jNi4ET5DRK/lerYgAzZ0VbtuR4rCDi hw+zNWV+k63yLeDE/GBtGPcRt5vmxEskaZ5f1yhfi3GwKY42k/FlkmtFGvZX2n59v0JR faS69Tk8jicI6KFwfItyHZXOC5PC2v3JOAUyY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.77.74 with SMTP id h10mr8007391ick.99.1299702747140; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.61.80 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:32:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110309194411.GG32629@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110218213453.GB96163@registro.br> <AANLkTi=gfTHvyBrBJhZ4TQhq6xumFuFZuyP-JgSOyZOK@mail.gmail.com> <20110309194411.GG32629@shinkuro.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:32:27 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimrE=A2n919b=3oOd80onJrYJYzH0jNrGBJCrsa@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3005dc068e908d049e12a097
Cc: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:31:13 -0000

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> With my administrative hat on, I just want to clear up some details.
>
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:33:51PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> > In particular we removed a feature from the previous version of the
> > specification that allowed a single CAA RR to contain a list of property
> > entries. That was considered to be confusing
>
> Is that a change to the definition of the RR?  I.e. is there a
> difference between the RRTYPE in the original template and the one in
> the latest draft?  If so, it's strictly speaking a new RRTYPE request
> and it needs a different template.  The RRTYPE code that you get is
> for the particular definition.  There isn't a mechanism so far to get
> a number and then be able to change the RRTYPE substantively, because
> the idea is that the typecode could be baked into software all over
> the place.


The change took place in the -02 version of the draft that is specified in
the template.

I have submitted a new -03 version of the draft that clarify the description
of the RRTYPE but do not change the proposal from that described in -02.


> I will make these corrections to the editing copy of the draft.
>
> It would be good, actually, if you could post an update.  The review
> requirements include these criteria for rejection:
>

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-donotissue-03.txt




>   1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
>      evaluate or implement.
>
>   3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete.
>      (Additional documentation can be provided during the public
>      comment period or by the Expert.)
>
> The block diagram in particular would be helpful.


The -03 draft provides additional documentation but does not modify the -02
RRTYPE definition submitted in January.

The template does not specify the version number of the draft.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/