> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 7:47 PM > To: SM > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf