IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 14 January 2016 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B0F1B347D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 05:11:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.098
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A2UHQvYLjV4l for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 05:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B5A01ACD71 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 05:11:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:58782) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1aJhg0-000ceZ-31 (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:10:56 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1aJhg0-0002OY-T4 (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:10:56 +0000
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:10:56 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqc53vizG54TS9yRCfP62EdnzyP=5piDRVKixAWB+_C+kw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1601141306000.8365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <566E329D.7010007@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeR5nVGOnLWQ3CzWKR86===VoXWNsqyas3yJEG5zX2n=Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1601131007410.8365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAJE_bqc53vizG54TS9yRCfP62EdnzyP=5piDRVKixAWB+_C+kw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1870870024-1260644851-1452777056=:8365"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YAhpGjvMiKoYK9VPeHyM0ilYRUo>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:11:07 -0000

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> - Does rfc2317bis really "update" RFC2136 in the first place?  It
>   certainly provides some additional client behavior that uses
>   RFC2136, but it doesn't seem to require any change to RFC2136 itself
>   (am I overlooking something?).

The purpose of that part of the RFC is to impose extra requirements on
UPDATE clients which are necessary for interoperability. I don't know
exactly how that intent should translate into RFC metadata labels, which
is why I have a question about it in the appendix. So I would really like
advice and opinions from others.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Fisher, German Bight: Southeast backing northeast, 5 to 7, decreasing 4 or 5
later. Moderate, occasionally rough. Rain or sleet. Good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email