Subject: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:10:32 -0400

Dear colleagues,

This message starts a two-week WGLC on the draft
draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt.  While we did not formally
take the step of adopting that I-D as a WG document, it is
sufficiently related to the topic of RFC2672bis that your chairs
believe it should be processed at the same time.

Please review the draft.  If you support publication, please state as
much on the list.  If you are opposed to publication, please state
that on the list as well.  It is more helpful to have your reasons for
your position as part of your statement.  

According to the usual DNSEXT convention, we require at least five
reviews in favour of publication in order to proceed.  Five supportive
reviewers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication
(i.e. evidence of significant opposition counts against a measure of
rough consensus).

The WGLC will end on 2011-04-27 at 21:00 UTC.

Best regards,
Andrew (as document shepherd)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Scott Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:16:33 -0400

I have read the draft and support it being published.

That said, should this doc update RFC 1035 and/or RFC 2672(bis)?  There is a
fine line between "clarifying" and "updating".  This isn't a show-stopper
IMHO, but since this clarification is important to implementors, it probably
should be noted.

Scott

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:45:55 -0400

I'm fine either way but I suppose it would make it easier to find if
it claimed to update those RFCs.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:05:33 -0400

Dear colleagues,

A reminder that this LC is expiring in two days.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:55:27 -0400

I find that it certainly clarifies what should be clear, and does so very
clearly itself.

I do not believe it goes beyond clarifying, except in regards to the
possible side effects
of unclear specifications previously on old code.

The DNS world is likely to be better (both on paper, and in reality) for
this being published...

Brian

---

From: "George Barwood" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:57:18 +0100

The draft says

"[RFC1035] unambiguously states that the AA bit is to be set based on
   whether the server providing the answer with the first owner name in
   the answer section is authoritative."

However what RFC1035 actually says is

"Authoritative Answer - this bit is valid in responses,
and specifies that the responding name server is an
authority for the domain name in question section.
Note that the contents of the answer section may have
multiple owner names because of aliases.  The AA bit
corresponds to the name which matches the query name, or
the first owner name in the answer section."

where the meaning of the last sentence is not entirely clear. 

For NoData responses, the answer section is empty. 
With DNAME, the first record in the answer section may not
match the query name if the DNAME record is output first
( the DNAME RFC is not explicit on the order AFAICS ).

So I suggest it's best to just ignore the last sentence from RFC 1035
and refer to the server being authoritative for the name in the
question section, i.e. 

"[RFC1035] states that the AA bit is to be set based on whether
the server is an authority for the domain name in the question section."

HTH,
George

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:22:07 +0100

> where the meaning of the last sentence is not entirely clear.

I guess the "or" means "which is expected to be"

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Rockall, Malin, Hebrides: South 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in
Rockall and Malin, veering west or northwest 4 or 5, then backing southwest 5
or 6 later. Rough or very rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor.

---

From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:24:27 +0100

> I guess the "or" means "which is expected to be"

If nothing else, that demonstrates that the word "unambiguously" in
the draft text below is overstating the case:

-- 
Alex Bligh

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:39:09 -0400

Hi,

> the draft text below is overstating the case:

Let me unambiguously state that I've got no problem with dropping the
word "unambiguously".

Donald

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:46:11 -0700

On 04/13/2011 08:10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
| This message starts a two-week WGLC on the draft
| draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt.

I have read the draft, I support its publication. I am ambivalent about
unambiguous. :)

Doug

- -- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/