Subject: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-01

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:10:53 +0000

Olafur asked for people to confirm they had read this and it looked OK. 
I have read it (again) and it looks OK.

--
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/>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:47:55 +0100

> I have read it (again) and it looks OK.

Thanks!

FWIW, I just updated <http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/> with a list of
outstanding items that should be taken care of:

  1. SPKI: drop references to SPKI WG, and reserve the SPKI types, if
     ever SPKI hits the standard track. Would require an update of RFC
     2538bis as well.

Comment: The SPKI documents are on the Experimental track, so we can't
reference them normatively.  Since nobody has expressed any interest
in SPKI in combination with CERT RR [that I have seen], I believe it
is easier to simply reserve them for use with SPKI according to a
future updated version of 2538bis.  What do you think?

  2. Add references for S/MIME, SSL/TLS, and IPSEC.

  3. Move acknowledgements of RFC 2538 authors to a "Contributor"
     section.

If there other open issues or questions on -01, I'm all ears.

I have to admit that I'm not sure the content-based owner name rules
will ever be useful for anyone.  However, removing them seem to be bad
for the document, process-wise.  There may be a slight problem in that
this fact is not properly reflected in the document, but I can't think
of anything to add that would be appropriate.  Thoughts on this would
be useful as well.

Regards,
Simon