Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on draft-ietf-behave-dns64-05

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:12:05 -0500

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:01:10AM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote:
> My comments and suggested wording changes on this document 
> are marked up in the PDF at 
> http://research.microsoft.com/~dthaler/draft-ietf-behave-dns64-05.pdf

A question about wording changes: in several places, you suggested
changing the English description of RCODE values from their names in
RFC 1035 to their usual representation from implementations.  For
instance, you suggest changing "RCODE=3 (Name Error)" to "RCODE=3
(NXDOMAIN)" and "RCODE=2 (Server failure)" to "RCODE=2 (SERVFAIL)".
Any special reason why?  If we're going to include NXDOMAIN, we have
another normative reference, because NXDOMAIN isn't defined at all in
RFC 1035 (neither is SERVFAIL, but it's at least an obvious abbrev).
That's why I prefer to stick with the definitions in 1035.  Ok?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.