IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 07 December 2011 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D99821F8C12; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:40:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1323272406; bh=xcTkWL75FcRxA8ELxOaay8Yhp7X9mD27n3N5HCrdRgE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=MKKRHiTpM00be9dSD84keeiShmsqVPVxsiLIF/K6u52IYkCBTCq3lKzi/jE/vZxHH a1hCK/IpsjMT3f9z+VmtbXuIhQoq427iovGYqqFSuc9IVaS5+3nEZH7auL/TF/Db/L Ii8/oVWXjV596A8eyQJJU5LWthYXhLMtepuA7R8g=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F9221F8C0F for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:40:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrodlJNGDBIi for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:40:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BE021F8B54 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB7FduXS005293; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:39:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1323272400; bh=JBb69UprjhmDA/e8JRPfbd8MVT72PmemXud0SI4oxY8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=JbCT2HYKHPhCEMYI+JCQ5P8FTERrX5QMJlsaBrtc2cJj1m3fyHwXsWm/P8s2cRLSv TpEhDSHfitBUw3aWTGvUAagz8y9QzVAR6XY0ck+uIEVqMNTWqIlRx894K5F0QdsqCY RyG+vW0oYrFYJJPSPZ0LxPc8DAZAuclbzutd5Ei0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1323272400; bh=JBb69UprjhmDA/e8JRPfbd8MVT72PmemXud0SI4oxY8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=a84WaMmlKO9vaBZ3S2mYJZFEOsEq6NXfBYY4i4KObWcEe0t6Jmjv4qJ5FFIei5hGf /1apksnw4vQJeivZJOJqnXt8Tqd03W1vH0faoMyIS/6YFmdra7iq37ca9HNDrwY1b+ lAI3+gPjQrobv2jp45vcicf37QHaaLcHY1G5TZFA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111207071614.0964a000@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:26:46 -0800
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20111206221911.06FDA1925ECD@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <20111206221911.06FDA1925ECD@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Mark,
At 14:19 06-12-2011, Mark Andrews wrote:
>4033, 4034 and 4035 all list 3007 as being updated by them.
>
>I see no evidence that any of 4033, 4034 and 4035 actually update
>3007.

There isn't any mention of what parts of RFC 3007 are updated by those RFCs.

>I believe a erratra should be filed.

See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/rfc-metadata-errata.html

Regards,
-sm 

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email