Subject: Re: Questions on the new DNSSEC spec

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:16:30 -0500

<chair hat>

> Q1:  From the current discussion on name compression and DNSSEC RRs:  The
> text describing the "signer's name" of the SIG RR and "next domain name" of
> the NXT field should be changed along the lines of the Unknown RR types
> draft.  That is, name compression MUST NOT be used in these fields when
> sending on the wire, but a resolver should be able to handle name
> compression in these fields if they encounter it without error.
>           a.  "MUST NOT compress DNS names found in the RDATA" is the
> paraphrased text in the -04 version of the unknown RRs draft.

uh, scott.  i miss that the above is a question.  i believe the goal
here is too seek consensus in the wg, and your words are more like an
assertion.  i know this is unintentional, but i am sure it will be
misread by the black helicopter afficianados and maybe even normal
humans as well.

folk, please consider these to be questions, and the proposed answers
to be simply scott's (and maybe others' and maybe not) opinions.

randy

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:22:02 -0500

I've learned from experience it is easier to ask yes/no answers than more
general "what should we do".  Otherwise, we will end up with too many
different opinions.

I will change the messages so that one question appears in a message.

Scott