> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME > RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard > > Rather than moving to Section 4, could we rename section 2, adding some > explanatory text as to why it's _not_ changing the interpretation of > those bits, and then make the statements that are already there? > [...] > I do understand the bafflement this section is causing as it stands, > however, because it seems not to be doing anything to these bits at > all. That's actually the clarification, however, and so I want to make > it explicit.
That would be far better than what's there now. Without the context you just gave, it does indeed seem rather awkward and a prime candidate for simplification. Thanks, -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
