IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis

Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Wed, 14 December 2005 01:30 UTC

From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:30:36 +1100
Lines: 27
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051213190224.02e7c310@ogud.com>
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
X-From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 14 02:36:34 2005
Return-path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:06:17 CDT." <6.2.5.6.2.20051213190224.02e7c310@ogud.com>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418072119.2560.36367.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt

	Section 2 you dropped the description of the first 4 octets of the
	KEY record but you left them in the diagram.  I would suggest that
	they be removed from the diagram.
 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt

	Both need a section describing the change from the RFC's they
	are obsoleting.

	Something stating that it doesn't change the wire format of KEY
	RR's it mearly extends the use to also cover DNSKEY.

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email