Subject: [dnsext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:23:17 -0800

The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification'
  <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-02-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   The Domain Name System (DNS) has long provided means, such as CNAME
   (Canonical Name), where a query can be redirected to a different
   name. A DNS response header has an RCODE (Response Code) field, used
   for indicating errors, and response status bits. This document
   clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries, how the RCODE and
   status bits correspond to the initial query cycle (where the CNAME or
   the like was detected) and subsequent or final query cycles.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:48:02 -0500

Sorry, didn't cc DNSEXT...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME
RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard
To: SM <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At 10:23 23-01-2012, The IESG wrote:
>>
> From the Introduction Section:
>
>
>  "This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries,
>   how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query
>   cycle (where the (first) xNAME was detected) and subsequent or
>   final query cycles."
>
> From Section 2.1:
>
>  "[RFC1035] states that the AA bit is to be set based on whether the
>   server providing the answer with the first owner name in the answer
>   section is authoritative.  This specification of the AA bit has not
>   been changed.  This specification of the AA bit has not been changed."

Actually, the last sentence above is not duplicated in the draft.

> And Section 2.2:
>
>  "[RFC4035] unambiguously states that the AD bit is to be set in a DNS
>   response header only if the DNSSEC enabled server believes all RRs in
>   the answer and authority sections of that response to be authentic.
>   This specification of the AD bit has not been changed."
>
> 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.

> In Section 3:
>
>    "The RCODE in the ultimate DNS response
>     MUST BE set based on the final query cycle leading to that
>     response."
>
> Shouldn't the "BE" be lowercased?

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. "BE" should probably be lowercase.

> The status of the memo suggests sending comments to
> [email-masked].  Is that IETF mailing list still being used by
> DNSEXT?

That was the mailing list at the time of the -00 personal draft
version. Sorry I missed updating the mailing list reference somewhere
along the way.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

> Regards,
> -sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:39:45 -0800

Hi Donald,
>Actually, the last sentence above is not duplicated in the draft.

Sorry about that; the mistake is at my end.

>believe that text has to make a change to be a clarification.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
-sm