Subject: [Enum] changes to experiences and edns0 drafts

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:43:21 +0100

Hi Alex, folks,
  Sorry about the delay, but here are the changes in the current  
versions of the experiences and edns0 drafts.

------------------
Changes in experiences-05
----
Highlighted that terms do not have RFC 2119 meaning - this does not  
obsolete or update the standards (3761 and 340x). It describes  
"what's out there" and proposes interpretations of ambiguous sections  
of the standards.

Changed all MUST/SHOULD/MAY to lower case throughout, to emphasise this.

Added explicit reference to E.164.

Spelt out acronym meanings on first use.

Corrected use of terms that have specific DNS meanings (owner,  
domain, zone, RRSet).

In section 5.1, corrected typo (its domain -> other domains)
In section 5.2.2, spelt out that subsequent DNS query should not be  
made.
In section 5.3.3, spelt out where this contrasts with terminal rule  
processing.
Made text more precise - (used -> provisioned using)

In section 6.2, spelt out why EDNS0 is needed, corrected typo  
(mesages -> messages), and refined which servers need to support EDNS0

On request, removed un-cited references.

Changes in edns0-02
----
Re-phrased to be more precise - we are talking about the size option  
of EDNS0, not just the EDNS0 framework

Added recommended sizes for this option.
(These are in keeping with section 6.2 of the experiences draft).

------------------

In summary, the goal is to progress the EDNS0 draft if this can be  
done quickly, and to replace the current text on EDNS0 within the  
experiences draft with a reference to the EDNS0 document.

Question for the WG:
The EDNS0 document discusses the impact of fragmentation on DNS  
processing for ENUM. Is this appropriate, given that the audience is  
likely to be ENUM implementers who do not have complete familiarity  
with the more complex issues of DNS?

The experiences draft has some descriptive text in section 6  
explaining why the implementer must implement the recommendations in  
RFC2181. This was added as ENUM implementers may not be familiar with  
all of the DNS documents. Given the intended audience for this  
document, should this be retained, or instead be replaced with a  
single sentence referring the reader to 2181?
(Something like - "For further guidance see RFC 2181 as that covers  
other aspects of DNS operation that are significant for ENUM  
processing. ".)

all the best,
   Lawrence

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum