Subject: [dnsext] Note re: r2672bis-dname and xnamercode

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:42:42 -0400

Hi,

Attached are two notes I intend to send to the WG list today, if you
have no objection.

A

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

Subject: Heads up: WGLC and recall
From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:36:23 -0400

Dear colleagues,

This note serves two purposes.

First, this is a recall notice on draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname.
The draft is currently at -21.  This draft previously went through
WGLC at version -17, and needed some more work.  In the opinion of the
document shepherd (me), all the issues with that document are
addressed.

Accordingly, I plan to send the document to our AD in one week, on
2011-04-20, unless I hear an objection.  I will treat previous LC
comments as pertaining to the current draft.  If you wish to review
the draft more fully, but will not have time before the 20th, please
let me know so that I can adjust my timetable.

Note that in this case, silence will be taken to be consent.

In addition, to address the issue of RCODE for CNAME and DNAME, we
will process draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt as a WG document.
Look for an independent WGLC message on that.

Best regards,
Andrew (as documents shepherd)

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

Subject: WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt
From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:41:57 -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.