Subject: Re: [dnsext] CDS RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 29th

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 22:16:37 +0000

Dear WG,

This message ends the review process for the CDS RRTYPE, according to
my judgment this request meets both requirements of section 3.1.1 and
none of section 3.1.2 of RFC5395 and should be accepted.

Best Regards,

Roy Arends

On 3/8/11 7:33 PM, "Roy Arends" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Below is a resubmission of a completed template requesting a new
> RRTYPE assignment under the procedures of RFC5395.
> 
> This message starts a 3 weeks period for an expert-review of the DNS
> RRTYPE parameter allocation for URI specified in
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-01.txt
> 
> If you have any new comments regarding this request that have not yet
> being made, please post them here before Mar 29th 18:00 UTC.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Roy Arends
> 
> --begin 5395 template URI--
> 
>    A.    Submission Date: 15 November 2010
> 
>    B.    Submission Type:
>          [X] New RRTYPE
>          [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
> 
>    C.    Contact Information for submitter:
>             Name: George Barwood
>             Email Address: [email-masked]
>             International telephone number: +44 1452 722670
>             Other contact handles: N/A
> 
>    D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
> 
>          To allow a copy of the DS RRset [RFC4034] to be published
>          in the child zone, which is used to update the parent DS RRset.
>          It is expected that this will allow the rollover of a key signing
>          key to be automated.
> 
>    E.    Description of the proposed RR type.
> 
>          The format is identical to the DS record.
>          However there is no special processing for servers/resolvers.
> 
>    F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
>          need and why are they unsatisfactory?
> 
>          None.
> 
>    G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
> 
>          CDS to stand for "Child DS".
> 
>    H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
>          Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in
>          DNS Parameters?
> 
>          It uses the same registries as the DS record.
> 
>    I.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
>          servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
>          processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
> 
>          No.
> 
>    J.    Comments:
>          An RFC describing in detail how the CDS RRset may be used
>          to update the parent DS RRset is anticipated. The current draft
>          is draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-01.
> 
> --end 5395 template URI--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext