Subject: Re: WGLC: Name Server Identifier Option

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:04:23 +0100

Dear colleagues,

There is consensus to publish this draft on the standards track,  
there have been sufficient reviewers, but there seems to be one issue  
that has not been completely resolved and that ended in a discussion  
between Rob and Peter.

This is what Rob proposed:
> If the WG would prefer that we just use an empty NSID option rather
> than the SI flag bit, that's a simple change.
>
> Absent a specification for what non-empty NSID payload from client to
> server would mean, I think it should be empty (name server MUST ignore
> NSID payload, client MUST NOT/SHOULD NOT send NSID payload).  If and
> when the WG specifies what client->server payload looks like, how it's
> supposed to work, etc, that specification can just update this one if
> the WG concludes that reusing the NSID option is appropriate.  I still
> suspect that the client->server case is different enough that it
> should be a separate option, but hey, I could be wrong.
>

The issue is whether to drop the SI flag and instead use the empty  
NSID OPTION as a signaling mechanism and
MUST language for the server ignoring client NSID payload (as argued  
by Peter on the 28th of October).

I propose that if nobody screams we declare that the consensus  
position is that we drop SI and use empty NSID, and specify MUST,  
publish 01, and push it to the IESG without a new last call.  Scream  
within a couple of days if you do not agree with this declaration of  
consensus :-)...

--Olaf
   Co-Chair.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/