Re: [dnsext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-09.txt> (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 23:39 -0700 SM <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  From Section 7 of the draft:
> 
>   "Responders which choose not to implement the protocol
> extensions
>    defined in this document MUST respond with a return code
> (RCODE) of
>    FORMERR to messages containing an OPT RR in the additional
> section
>    and MUST NOT include an OPT record in the response."
> 
> That looks like a change [1] to STD 13.  Responders which
> respond with a return code of 4 would not be compliant.
>...
> The IETF might wish to consider whether it is necessary to
> align the text in the two drafts.
>...

One observation on this part of the thread...

While I'm much more concerned about the substantive impact of
deprecating a possibly-useful (even if painful to use) feature
without adequate justification and documentation, I believe that
documents being processed for classification as Internet
Standard should be held to a very high standard for editorial
quality and clarity and consistency of relationships to other
specifications.  If others agree with that belief, SM's analysis
appears to represent a strong case that the current version of
this draft (and possibly draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04) are
not ready for prime time.

   best,
    john