Subject: draft-ietf-dnsind-dname-02.txt

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:47:46 -0500

I was about to issue the IETF Last Call for this one, and came up with
some questions.

1) This document doesn't say anything about compression. I can see at
least two options:

- DNAME RRs are not subject to compression

- DNAME RRs may be compressed as per
draft-ietf-dnsind-local-compression-03.txt

The WG should decide which it prefers and add a sentence to that
effect in the draft. If the WG chooses the latter, note that the
reference would be normative.

2) The code point for the RR is listed as TBA, but I believe it has
already been allocated. Also, there is no IANA Considerations
section. It would be good to update the draft with the assigned number
and add an IANA considerations section that states something like "The
number XX has been assigned to the DNAME RR".

3)

>    [EDNS0]  P. Vixie, "Extensions mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", Work in
>             progress.

The draft name should be put in to make it clear this is a normative
reference. (The rfc editor typically considers "work in progress" to
mean non-normative).

4) The document has no security considerations section. 

5) add the ISOC copyright when the document  gets revved.

I'd like to start the Last Call, but item 1 really ought to be
addressed first.

Thomas

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:24:04 +0100

> draft-ietf-dnsind-local-compression-03.txt

The compression format will slightly change in version 04, which is in
preparation now, to solve a problem with DNSSEC interaction. This was
brought up after the Orlando meeting.

-Peter

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:19:24 -0500

Except for short term document issuance ordering problems where you
can't definitively refer to local-compression before its out, is
there any reason why an new RR ever would NOT be locally compressible
and so state, assuming it contains domain names?

Donald

From:  Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
To:  Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Cc:  Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date:  Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:24:04 +0100