xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification
RFC 6604
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
The Abstract says: 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. A standards track document that "clarifies" an existing RFC looks awfully like an "update". This seems to be confirmed in Section 3. As Pete channels Murray, please consider whether this document *does* update any existing RFCs.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
Please address the concerns of Murray Kucherawy's AppsDir review and SM's IETF list comment: 1. Please add an appropriate "Updates" list to this document. Murray mentioned 1035, 2308, and 2672. 1034 and 4035 might also be on the list. I will leave it to the judgement of the authors and WG to figure out what's appropriate. 2. Please give some context for section 2. In particular, Andrew Sullivan's reply to Murray on the IETF list seems to have appropriate explanation that there are implementations that failed to correctly implement the current specs. A mention of that in section 2 would be useful.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection