On 2 Oct 2012, at 19:31, SM wrote: > At 08:09 02-10-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >> off bad or frivolous ideas), but closing is a big step. Telling >> implementers that they don't need to pay attention to the >> relevant codes and fields (and might even be able to use them >> for a different, even if private, purpose) is an even more >> serious step. > > Yes. > > In Section 6.1.2: > > "OPTION-CODE > Assigned by the Expert Review process as defined by the dnsext > working group and the IESG." > > It's odd to keep this defined by a working group which is being closed. The process is (has been) defined by the wg. The assignment is done by the Expert Review process, not the wg. > Section 9.1 does not provide much information. One significant change in the draft is the inclusion of requirements for "middleboxes". It's not mentioned under in Appendix A.2. OK, can add mention in there, no problem. > > BTW, the RFC 2119 reference could be normative. > > Regards, > -sm