Subject: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-03

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 23:23:40 -0400

Hi,

I have reviewed this draft and have the following comments:

Since this is intended for standards track, it can certainly change IANA
Considerations. So, in Section 5, page 5, I think "requested to be" should
be replaced so the relevant sentence reads "Therefore, the registry
of Extended Label Types is hereby closed." Similarly, in Section 9, at the
bottom of page 10, "We request that this registry be closed." -> "This
registry is hereby closed."

Section 9, page 11, pretty much repeats the provisions about RCODEs that
were in RFC 2671. However, since then, TSIG and TKEY expanded possible
RCODEs to 16 bits and IANA Considerations changes were made for RCODEs in
RFC 5395. So I suggest something like the following change:
OLD

   [RFC2671] expands the RCODE space from 4 bits to 12 bits.  This
   allows more than the 16 distinct RCODE values allowed in [RFC1035
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035>].
   IETF Standards Action is required to add a new RCODE.  Adding new
   RCODEs should be avoided due to the difficulty in upgrading the
   installed base.

   This document assigns EDNS Extended RCODE 16 to "BADVERS".

NEW

   [RFC2671] expanded the RCODE space from 4 bits to 12 bits and it

   was later expanded to 16 bits in connection with TSIG and TKEY.

   IANA Considerations for RCODEs are now specified in [RFC5395].

   [RFC2671] also assigned RCODE 16 to "BADVERS". That assignment

   continues to be in force.

Nits:

In Section 6.9 at the top of page 9, there seems to be a short line where
text didn't flow. Is there supposed to be a paragraph break there? Also, I
think ``0.'' -> "0".

Section 7, fourth line on page 10, "to to" -> "to".

Section A.2: I don't understand the first point. Which constants?

Section 10: I usually see the RFC2119 reference as Normative rather than
Informational.
Thanks,
Donald