Protocol Action: 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 08 March 2012 00:50 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt)
Message-ID: <20120308005042.21613.5937.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:50:42 -0800
Cc: dnsext chair <dnsext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, dnsext mailing list <dnsext@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Precedence: list

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification'
  (draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode/




Technical Summary

    This memo clarifies how to set the RCODE and how to handle the AD
    and AA bits when processing chains of CNAMEs, DNAMEs, or any other
    similar (as yet uninvented) RRTYPE that performs name redirection.
    It addresses an ambiguity that has persisted in handling of these
    RRTYPEs since RFC 1034 was published.

Working Group Summary 

    This memo was reviewed by five reviewers of the DNS Extensions
    Working Group. It agrees with other discussions on the DNSEXT
    mailing list about how to handle these cases.

Document Quality 

    The memo agrees with the actual behaviour of many deployed DNS
    resolvers. 

Personnel

   Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> is the Document
   Shepherd.  Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> is the
   Responsible AD.

RFC Editor Note

   Please edit the headers for this document to reflect that
   it updates RFC1035, RFC2672, and RFC2308.

   Please make the following edits before publication:

Rename Section 2:
OLD
2. Status Bits
NEW
2. Restatement of Status Bits and What They Mean

Extend text is first part of Section 2:
OLD
  relate to the first, possible intermediate, and/or last queries, as
  follows:
NEW
  relate to the first, possible intermediate, and/or last queries, as
  below.  Note that the following is unchanged from RFC 1035 and RFC
  4035.  The meaning of these bits is simply restated here for
  clarity, because of observations of released implementations that
  did not follow these meanings.

Protocol Action: 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Cla… The IESG