[dnsext] CNAME check Re: [WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16]

For Section 4.3.  "Check for CNAME",

In order to accommade the possible CNAME synthesis extension, how about
adding the following sentence or sentence with the similar meaning in the 
section 4.3?

"
When validating the CNAME, if the CNAME has not matching RRSIG and the 
validator can not decide whether the CNAME is the synthesis of other names 
such as the DNAME, this CNAME should be neglected."

Jiankang Yao

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: <dnsext@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8:27 PM
Subject: [dnsext] [WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16]

>
> I have read the document and support its publication.
>
> /bill
>
> At 12:49 AM 1/20/2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>This message initiates a three week Working Group Last Call on the
>>document draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16.  LC will close on
>>2012-01-11 at 00:00 UTC.
>>
>>The WG's standard conventions, which require five reviewers who state
>>that they have read the draft and support its publication as a
>>necessary but not sufficient determinant of rough consensus, are in
>>force.  Please review the document and post to the list any comments
>>you have before the close of LC.  If you cannot meet that deadline,
>>but are willing to commit to completing a review and can give me a
>>firm date for it (and that date is within a reasonable horizon), I
>>will announce an extension of the LC deadline.  I'd appreciate it if
>>you'd tell me of this need sooner rather than later.  Specific
>>comments are much better than generic ones, and specific comments with
>>suggested text (if you find some text wanting) are particularly
>>encouraged.
>>
>>Speaking only personally, this draft is the product of several years
>>of WG work: the -00 of the draft was submitted in 2005.  Moreover, it
>>is the product of a lot of heated discussion and careful teasing out
>>of the issues involved.  I would be sad to discover that we could not
>>find (rather) more than five reviewers for this document.
>>
>>I will be the shepherd for this document if it is sent to the IESG.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext 

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext