On 2 Oct 2012, at 19:31, SM wrote: > At 08:09 02-10-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >> off bad or frivolous ideas), but closing is a big step. Telling >> implementers that they don't need to pay attention to the >> relevant codes and fields (and might even be able to use them >> for a different, even if private, purpose) is an even more >> serious step. > > Yes. > > In Section 6.1.2: > > "OPTION-CODE > Assigned by the Expert Review process as defined by the dnsext > working group and the IESG." > > It's odd to keep this defined by a working group which is being closed.
The process is (has been) defined by the wg. The assignment is done by the Expert Review process, not the wg. > Section 9.1 does not provide much information. One significant change in > the draft is the inclusion of requirements for "middleboxes". It's not > mentioned under in Appendix A.2. OK, can add mention in there, no problem. > > BTW, the RFC 2119 reference could be normative. > > Regards, > -sm
