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

[Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>]

Thanks to all who have reviewed this doc during the WGLC (Mark, 
Wouter, Ed, Mike, Mohan, Warren, and Bill).  I want to assure you that 
your comments are not being ignored -- I plan to respond to most of 
them in bulk at the end of the WGLC.  I'm responding to this one now
since it may require some more discussion.


On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:

> The section and appendix on CD bits are long.  Not wrong, but long.

I know, and I concur.  The chairs directed the editors to add this 
text, which is the result of a design team meeting reported on this 
list (well, on namedroppers).  I didn't feel strongly enough about it 
to refuse.

Feel free to make a stronger case for leaving some of it (e.g. the 
whole appendix) out.

> Section 6.2 is correct.  But its tone is loose.  It is about lenient
> acceptance of the SEP flag.  Please say that, or say that the proper
> setting of the SEP flag is defined in its RFC.

I'll try to improve this when making the changes at the end of WGLC.

-- Sam
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext