Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis (Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations) to BCP

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:08:19 +0100

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:48:11AM -0500,
 The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 24 lines which said:

> The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to 
> consider the following document:
> 
> - 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations '
>    <draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt> as a BCP

I approve the goal (the main change is to simplify the registration of
new DNS Resource Record codes, from "IETF consensus" to the new "DNS
RRTYPE Allocation Policy" in section 3.1.1 of the I-D).

I've read the document and I've found only one typo (3.1.1: "a
Meta-Type who processing is optional", I believe it should be "whose
processing").

But I find that the Expert Review process in section 3.1.1 may be
described too lightly. I base my opinion on experience with the
ietf-languages process (RFC 4646) which uses a similar expert
review. There have been some problems such as deadlocking (the expert
thought his previous comments were to be addressed, while the
requester thought he had to wait the expert) or uncertainty about
delays (does a new form, sent to address some comments, reset the
period?).

draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-09 (section 3.5) specifically addresses these
points, which seem to be ignored in draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt:

* modifications made to the request during the course of the
registration process (they extend the period, but do not reset it),

* clear indication of the outcome of the process (acceptance,
rejection, extension). Some requests on ietf-languages saw the period
pass and no decision taken,

* appeals to the IESG

May be such wording should appear in draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis?

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

---

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:16:19 -0500

Hi,

Thanks for your comment on 2929bis. See response below at @@@

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis (Domain Name System
(DNS)IANA Considerations) to BCP

@@@ Thanks for finding this typo.

@@@ I do not see any reason to provide for extension of consideration
or mid-stream modification to applications. The Expert is required by
2929bis to monitor namedroppers discussion of applications for an RR
Type and applicants are encouraged by 2929bis to informally post
applications to get feedback. So the applicant should normally have
early feedback from the Expert. In cases where the formal application
is rejected and the Expert provides suggested changes, it seems
simpler and cleaner for the applicant to resubmit, rather than modify.
This also fits with the DNSEXT WG consensus that the namedroppers
community have three weeks to examine any application, to reduce the
chance of someone missing something because they are on vacation or
the like, rather than the more common IETF posting requirement of two
weeks (which is used in 4646bis).

@@@ I personally don't see why someone would think there is a time
extension or mid-stream change facility for 2929bis when none is
provided in the document; but I don't object to adding a few words
to make this clear.

@@@ This is probably a good point. The addition of a specific
requirement for the assigned Expert to post an acceptance or
rejection (presumably to IANA, namedroppers, and the applicant)
within a reasonable period of time, such as six weeks from the
formal posting of the completed template to namedroppers, seems
reasonable to me.

* appeals to the IESG

@@@ I see no need to include this. 2929bis normatively references
RFC 2434 which says:

@@@"Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using
the
   normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-
   PROCESS]. Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG,
   they may be removed by the IESG."

@@@ How about adding the following to Section 3.1.1?

@@@ "After a completed template has been formally posted to namedroppers
   by IANA the Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or
   rejecting the application, to IANA, namedroppers, and the email
   address provided by the applicant not less than three weeks and not
   more than six weeks after the formal posting. If the Expert does
   not post such a message, the application shall be considered
   rejected but may be re-submitted to IANA."

@@@ Thanks again,
@@@ Donald

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:35:47 +0100

On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 04:16:19PM -0500,
 Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 103 lines which said:

> How about adding the following to Section 3.1.1?
> 
>    "After a completed template has been formally posted to
>    namedroppers by IANA the Expert shall post a message, explicitly
>    accepting or rejecting the application, to IANA, namedroppers,
>    and the email address provided by the applicant not less than
>    three weeks and not more than six weeks after the formal
>    posting. If the Expert does not post such a message, the
>    application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted
>    to IANA."

It seems fine to me.