-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 7:47 PM
To: SM
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME
RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard
It is not clear to me what is being clarified about the status bits.
This draft brings together the aspects of the AA, AD, and RCODE bits
related to xNAME RR query cycles and expresses them clearly and
succinctly. As such it has been approved by the DNSEXT WG. I do not
believe that text has to make a change to be a clarification.
I made the same point in my review of this for AppsDir, and it got a similar
response.
In short, I also find the current presentation a bit awkward. To fix it, I
believe Section 2 should be dropped, and the references for the definitions of
AA and AD should be moved to the current Section 4. No details are lost, the
document becomes simpler, and simpler is better.
I appreciate any working group's time spent developing and reviewing something,
but the fact that DNSEXT approved it this way doesn't mean it can't be improved.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf