-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:01 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME
RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard
Rather than moving to Section 4, could we rename section 2, adding some
explanatory text as to why it's _not_ changing the interpretation of
those bits, and then make the statements that are already there?
[...]
I do understand the bafflement this section is causing as it stands,
however, because it seems not to be doing anything to these bits at
all. That's actually the clarification, however, and so I want to make
it explicit.
That would be far better than what's there now. Without the context you just
gave, it does indeed seem rather awkward and a prime candidate for
simplification.
Thanks,
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf