Subject: Re: [dnsext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22.txt> (Update to DNAME Redirection in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:01:09 -0700

At 13:56 26-05-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
>consider the following document:
>- 'Update to DNAME Redirection in the DNS'
>   <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-06-09. Exceptionally, comments may be

I apologize for sending these comments after the end of the Last Call.

Quoting Section 4:

   'Based on the experience gained in the meantime, [RFC3363] is revised,
    dropping all constraints on having DNAME RRs in these zones.  This
    would greatly improve the manageability of the IPv6 reverse tree.
    These changes are made explicit below.

    In [RFC3363], the paragraph

      "The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
      closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
      one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
      other isn't either.  Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
      the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
      tree be deprecated."

   is to be replaced with the word "DELETED".'

Is the intent to allow the use of DNAME RRs in the reverse tree?  if 
so, replacing the paragraph with the word "DELETED" does not make that clear.

Regards,
-sm