Subject: [dnsext] EDNS0-bis document next steps

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:39:35 -0400

The ENDS0-bis document is in relatively good shape, we plan to start a
WGLC on this document by the end of this month. Before then we ask that
people take a look at the current version and see if they have issues 
with the document as it is.
Link:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0/

In particular Section's 6.4 - 6.8 need to be reviewed as to if the
recommendations in the sections are the ones the WG should make?

The document specifies Expert review for new EDNS0 options,
currently there is no criteria in the document for the expert(s)
to follow. The question is:
SHOULD the document specify a criteria for the expert(s) ?

The document closes the extend labels registry and moves
bit-labels to historic.
Do WG members agree with these actions?

	Olafur

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:58 +0100

> SHOULD the document specify a criteria for the expert(s) ?

Maybe. OTOH, RFC5395 has almost no criteria for the experts who review  
new RRtype code assignments. So perhaps the EDNS0-bis document should  
follow what was done for 5395.