Subject: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-12

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:44:00 +0200 (MESZ)

[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
   a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.  
   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore 
   delete relevant posts by non-subscribers. 
   Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

Hello,
once again, I have reviewed the latest revision of your DNAME I-D,
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-12.

There are only very few details where I ant to suggest further
improvements -- some of which related with the new role of the
document as a *replacement* of RFC 2672.

(1)  subtle issues related to "Obsoletes: RFC 2672"

(1a)  Section 9

Listing the (to-be-)obsoleted RFC 2672 as a Normative Reference
would cause a road-block to further advancement of the DNAME
specification on the Standards Track, since the maturity level
of an obsoleted RFC will never advance.

Therefore, I urgently recomment to demote [RFC2672] from
Normative to Informative.

(1b) Section 1, 1st paragraph

The 4th paragraph already sheds a light on DNAME history.
Nevertheless, I believe that the first paragraph should be
amended by the word "originally" to avoid the impression
of a fatal, road-blocking Normative Reference to the
(to-be-)obsoleted original document:
                                      v
|  DNAME is a DNS Resource Record type defined in RFC 2672 [RFC2672].
   DNAME provides redirection from a part of the DNS name tree to
   another part of the DNS name tree.
---                                   vvvvvvvvvvvv
|  DNAME is a DNS Resource Record type originally defined in RFC 2672
   [RFC2672].  DNAME provides redirection from a part of the DNS name
   tree to another part of the DNS name tree.

(2)  Examples in Section 1

The 4th paragraph of Section 1 explains the use fo DNAME RRs
in support of network renumbering, and then continues:

                       [...]  Examples in practice are classless reverse
   address space delegations and punycode alternates for domain spaces.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obviously, the latter example does not fit under the umbrella of the
preceding discussion, and mention to it should better be moved into
the subsequent paragraph dealing with "redirection of name spaces".

(3)  Section 3.1, first paragraph -- nit

Please align the spelling/capitalization to what is used elsewhere
in the draft:

    ... UD (Understand Dname) bit.
---
    ... UD (Understand-DNAME) bit.
                      ^ ^^^^

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

Spam detection software, running on the system "mail.ogud.com", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
The administrator of that system for details.

Content preview:  [ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was
   posted by a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K. With the massive
  amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete relevant posts by
  non-subscribers. Please fix your subscription addresses. ] [...] 

Content analysis details:   (2.6 points, 4.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 3.4 HEADER_SPAM            Bulk email fingerprint (header-based) found
 3.2 CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER A foreign language charset used in headers
-2.3 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
                            [score: 0.0000]
 0.1 RDNS_NONE              Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS
-1.7 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list