Subject: i'm thinking that EDNS0-bis is just not very sexy

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:28:09 +0000

so far 9 people have fetched the EDNS0-bis draft,
whereas 74 people have fetched the DNS-0x20 draft.

does this indicate a lack of interest in clarifying
EDNS0?  or that if we want EDNS0 reviewed, we should
hire a consultant?

those url's again are:

http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-00.txt
http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/dns-0x20.txt

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

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:37:55 -0500

> EDNS0?  or that if we want EDNS0 reviewed, we should
Neither, I think. Rather, it reflects well on the thought that went into 
the document
and the prior input, with high expectations on the quality and relevance 
of the
resulting draft.

When  you expect something to be bad, you sniff it. But not when you expect
it to be fine. (Perverse, but true. Bad milk, spoiled meat, moldy cheese,
anything written by d**n **nder**n.)

I have reviewed the -bis draft, and see nothing wrong with it.

I am in favor of moving it forward to whatever the next step is towards
publication as an RFC.

Brian

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:50:50 +0100

> so far 9 people have fetched the EDNS0-bis draft,

I think this document is good, and support it. I have specifically  
looked at sections 4.5.3, 4.5.4 and 5.4 as the "bootstrap" issues have  
been the ones that have created issues for me. This is much better.

    Patrik

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:07:30 +0800

>EDNS0?  or that if we want EDNS0 reviewed, we should

I find that, as an editor, you have to really push for discussion on 
a document.

I hadn't been aware of the EDNS0-bis.  Mostly because my "day job" is 
busier and the IETF has become background noise.

(That's why I said the previous AXFR doc wouldn't be updated until 
after the IETF meeting.  BTW - Thanks to those who sent off-list 
comments, I've been too busy to reply.  I will get back to the AXFR 
issue, but just not now.)

>http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/dns-0x20.txt

Are either on the IETF site?
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Mail archives, backups.  Sometimes I think the true beneficiaries of
standards work are the suppliers of disk drives.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:44:35 +0000

> Are either on the IETF site?

the first was submitted before the -00 cutoff, but has not appeared.  indeed
i have heard no ack, no nak, nothing from the secretariat.  i cc'd olafur as
wg chair so that he would know when it was submitted ("i have witnesses").

the second was not submitted, since it was finished after the -00 cutoff date,
but i think it's topical, and timely, and ought to be discussed, in philly.

---

From: Phil Pennock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:14:42 -0800

> http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-00.txt

Apologies if this was covered, but I've checked archives and not found
mention of this.

What happened to the extended label type reservation of 0bxx111111 ?

If this is no longer reserved, shouldn't that withdrawal be noted in the
IANA considerations?

Regards,
-Phil

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:06:53 +0100

The draft made the cut-off, so the numbers are incomparable.

	jaap

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:50:05 +0000

> What happened to the extended label type reservation of 0bxx111111 ?

it was dependent on the extended label type reservation, which was removed.

> If this is no longer reserved, shouldn't that withdrawal be noted in the

you're right, but moreso, we should tell IANA to delete the ELT registry.