Subject: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc?

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:17:30 +0200

Any thoughts on whether the following would be a DNSEXT document? 
I'm asking DNSOP too.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-dns-undocumented-types-01

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:07:05 +0200

On 29/03/2012 11:17, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Any thoughts on whether the following would be a DNSEXT document? I'm
> asking DNSOP too.
>

FWIW, this document is inside the WG scope,
Consider this an official request for comments if there are people in 
this group willing to work on reviewing and assisting Ed in pushing this 
document out.

	Olafur

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:23:51 +0100

Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Any thoughts on whether the following would be a DNSEXT document? I'm asking
> DNSOP too.
>

Having gone through the IANA RR type registry recently, this is quite a
useful document :-)

There's a nit in section 2.0: there is no need to consider downcasing or
compression, since RFCs 3597 and 4034 completely specify which RRs are
subject to these modifications.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Plymouth, Biscay: Northeast 3 or 4, occasionally 5 in Biscay. Slight or
moderate. Mainly fair. Moderate, occasionally poor.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:47:46 +0200

>subject to these modifications.

3597 and 4034 only mention if you have to do compression/down casing, 
not where in the RDATA the domain names appear.

I should have rephrased that as a question...I mean, given that, do 
you still think there's no need to mention?

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:57:07 +0100

Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> 3597 and 4034 only mention if you have to do compression/down casing, not
> where in the RDATA the domain names appear.
>
> I should have rephrased that as a question...I mean, given that, do you still
> think there's no need to mention?

Yes I think there is no need to mention compresstion and downcasing since
they do not apply to any of these RR types. From the point of the DNS they
are all blobs.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Fair Isle, Faeroes: Northwest 5 to 7. Moderate or rough. Rain and drizzle then
fair. Moderate or good, occasionally poor.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:55:09 +0200

>they do not apply to any of these RR types. From the point of the DNS they

Ok, the -01++ version (which might be a WG -00) will have this 
(unless edited again), let me know if...

2.0 Documenting the types

In this section, each type will be presented, including a basic description
of the syntax.  The basic description is presented because it might be
helpful to implementers that merely want convert the data into a viewable
format.  For applications wanting to process this data, consulting a more
thorough description is encouraged.  It has been pointed out that none of
these types are impacted by message compression or DNSSEC alteration.

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:04:41 +0100

> these types are impacted by message compression or DNSSEC alteration.

I suggest replacing the last sentence with:

  All of these types can correctly be treated as unstructured binary data,
  as described in section 3 of RFC 3597 (handling unknown DNS RR types).

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Fisher: Northwesterly 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 in east. Rough. Fair.
Moderate or good.