On 15.5.2014 10:06, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Wes, Thanks for taking the time out to sort out these issues and rev the draft. I've reviewed your changes with the comments on the list (as well as my own editorial comments) and I feel you have addressed all of the issues raised. All, I'm going to re-read the latest version over the weekend and unless we hear from others, will consider the group has reached consensus and we are ready to move it along to the next stage.
If it is not too late...: draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-01:
2.1.1.2.1. The Type Bit Map Field The Type Bit Map field indicates the record types to be processed by the parental agent, according to the procedures in Section Section 3. The Type Bit Map field is encoded in the same way as the Type Bit Maps field of the NSEC record, described in [RFC4034], Section 4.1.2. If a bit has been set that a parental agent implementation does not understand, the parental agent MUST NOT act upon the record. Specifically: a parental agent must not copy data blindly; An IETF proposed (or higher) standard specification must exist that defines how the data should be processed for a given bit.
What about private RR types? Are we intentionally saying 'private types cannot be used'?
-- Petr Spacek @ Red Hat _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
