On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 4:39 PM Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 2:14 PM Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote: > [ ... ] > > > > My proposal would be to avoid using terms like "DNS Name Successor" > introduced in an "experimental" RFC (4471), delete the reference, and just > use what is described in the already referenced RFC 4470 (Standards Track), > which states the following (Section 4): > > > > "To increment a name, add a leading label with a single null > (zero-value) octet." > > > > which is all that we need. The term "immediate lexicographic successor" > was introduced in this draft, and we can just equate it to the above in the > draft text. > > > >> A final process point: This document is seeking Proposed Standard > status. Process requires that if you're going to include a normative > reference to RFC 4471, which is Experimental, then (a) your AD has to > approve the reference, and (b) the Last Call is supposed to call out the > downward reference, but it didn't. > > > > > > I'm fine if the AD wants to approve the down reference. But I think my > proposal above makes the issue moot. > > > I agree. I favor your proposal. > > -andy > Thanks Andy. Murray - are you okay with this? If so, I'll make the update to the draft. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
