At 10:23 23-01-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification'
<draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.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
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-02-06. Exceptionally, comments
may be
From the Introduction Section:
"This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries,
how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query
cycle (where the (first) xNAME was detected) and subsequent or
final query cycles."
From Section 2.1:
"[RFC1035] 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. This specification of the AA bit has not
been changed. This specification of the AA bit has not been changed."
And Section 2.2:
"[RFC4035] unambiguously states that the AD bit is to be set in a DNS
response header only if the DNSSEC enabled server believes all RRs in
the answer and authority sections of that response to be authentic.
This specification of the AD bit has not been changed."
It is not clear to me what is being clarified about the status bits.
In Section 3:
"The RCODE in the ultimate DNS response
MUST BE set based on the final query cycle leading to that
response."
Shouldn't the "BE" be lowercased?
The status of the memo suggests sending comments to
namedroppers(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org. Is that IETF mailing list still being
used by DNSEXT?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf