Subject: summary of wcard-clarify issues

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:50:24 -0400

As the (informal) WG last call has expired - which doesn't mean an 
ending to comments - here are what I see as issues:

1) A mistake in the label definition - 0b00 is the start, not 0b01

2) Simon's question about multi-wild cards being described in the 
draft as legal when they are SHOULD NOT in the original.  (So far 
only Peter has chimed in.)

--Do we need to state what happens when one is detected (or just 
legalize them)?

3) Simon's issue about whether the query has special processing 
because 1034 says not to cache the answer to a QNAME=*.<something>. 
a) I think that's a cache issue and would document it as such.  b) 
Peter suggests removing this prohibition and warning that no 
synthesis is done as a result of retrieving data from the cache.

4) Rob suggests I take Inglesh lessons (;)).  Everything I learnt 
about righting I got from the IETF documents.  Seriously, the parts 
of section 6 mentioned are the least mature, they were thrown in 
between July and the submission date.  The issue there is when I will 
have time to do the edit.

These are the hanging issues I've identified.

Issues I think that are out of scope for this document:

1) The meaning of a name error in a negative response, and how a 
cache or stub resolver might interpret this.

2) Alternative means of synthesizing answers and transferring them 
between servers.

3) Any actions taken at a cache.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

Sponge Bob Square Pants?  I'm still trying to figure out the Macarena.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>