Subject: [dns-dir] draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-02.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:21:53 -0400

The IESG has been asked to perform an RFC 5742 review of draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-02.txt.

I don't see any problems with the RRTYPE values requested from IANA, and I recommend publishing with the IESG note (1 from RFC 5742):

      The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
      document and IETF work.

Are you all comfortable with the definition of the LP RR?  Should it have stronger caveats against multiple levels of indirection; e.g., words to the effect that a the owner name of an LP RR must not appear as RDATA in another RR?  Note that I can only make recommendations to the authors and I cannot require any changes in the document.

- Ralph

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:28:32 -0400

On 5/17/12 10:21 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> I don't see any problems with the RRTYPE values requested from IANA,
> and I recommend publishing with the IESG note (1 from RFC 5742):
>
> Are you all comfortable with the definition of the LP RR?  Should it
> have stronger caveats against multiple levels of indirection; e.g.,
> words to the effect that a the owner name of an LP RR must not appear
> as RDATA in another RR?  Note that I can only make recommendations to
> the authors and I cannot require any changes in the document.
>
> - Ralph

There is also some discussion of DNS considerations in the ILNP 
engineering considerations draft (draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng).

Regards,
Brian