Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: RFC1886bis-01

[Vladimir Ksinant <vladimir.ksinant@6wind.com>]

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> 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).

Our opinion is that the draft should not list all the types that require
additional section processing. The reason is that some new types may
have to be added in the future and they will not be listed in the
document. 

If the interoperability report creates confusion on this point, we can
fix it.


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

Point taken.

> [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?
> 

Our own opinion is that [4] is rather informative reference.

> Also, [5] through [8] seems like informative references.

Agreed

> (But [3] is normative for the textual representation.)

Agreed too.

If there is consensus on this, we can modify the references in the
draft.

Vladimir and mohsen

--
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/>