Subject: Re: Section 4 of dnssec-protocol-03

From: Mike StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:20:55 -0500

At 10:36 AM 10/31/2003, Mike StJohns wrote:
>At 10:28 AM 10/31/2003, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Mike StJohns wrote:
>>
>> > ... we changed all the type codes to prevent problems with legacy
>> > systems - might it not make sense to make the hard separation
>> > include stub to recursive resolver signalling?  Its one bit in the
>> > EDNS0 header.
>>
>>I find it interesting how questions that have been discussed at
>>length, including in last-called and IESG-approved documents (albeit
>>ones not yet out of the RFC editor's queue), keep getting raised.

Yup.  But this document is supposed to represent a complete compilation of 
all the little twiddles in the virtual forest of documents making up the 
DNSSEC stuff.  And a *replacement* for those documents - e.g. when 
complete, this document will represent ground truth and the other documents 
will be deprecated.  So by the normal standards process, its legitimate to 
give this a second look.  I don't mind treating it as settled though - I 
mentioned it because it seemed strange to change one thing without changing 
the other.  So leave it as is and lets move on.

>>See section 2.3 of the TCR draft, which went to IETF last call on July
>>16th and was approved for publication on 21 August.  If the standards
>>process is letting documents through with too little review, then we
>>have bigger problems than a header bit will fix.

Actually, what the current -05 version of this (-03 was what was submitted 
to the IESG) says is "
It could, though,
    be considered in addition to changing the RR type codes."
referring to adding a second DO type bit.  It didn't actually make a 
decision except by not mentioning it further.

>>-- Sam