Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: RFC1886bis-01

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> The DNSEXT working group has concluded a last call on this document
> and there is consensus on requesting it be advanced as Draft Standard.

I've looked it over.

The interoperability report identifies some RR types for which AAA
additional section processing makes sense that are
not explicitly specified in the draft:
    * CNAME records (not mentioned in RFC1886)
    * PTR records (mentioned in RFC1886, but not explicitly)
    * SRV records (not mentioned in RFC1886)
    * SOA records (not mentioned in RFC1886)

Wouldn't it make sense to add explicit mention of those types to section 3
(right now the section says for example NS and MX).

> Normative References

For this document to become a draft standard all normative references need to
be draft standard or higher.

>   [4]  Gilligan, R., and E. Nordmark, "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6
>        Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, FreeGate Corp., Sun Microsystems
>	Inc., August 2000.
>	This RFC is being updated. The current draft is 
>        "draft-ietf-ngtrans-mech-v2-00.txt", Gilligan, R., and 
>        E. Nordmark, July 17, 2002

Is this really a normative reference i.e. something that one needs to
read and understand in order to implement RFC1886bis?

Also, [5] through [8] seems like informative references.
(But [3] is normative for the textual representation.)

  Erik


--
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/>