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

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:50:43 -0500 (EST)

This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC.  It 
also contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that 
have received too little attention from the WG.  Accordingly, I 
continue to oppose publication of this document[1].  I suggest that 
the IESG refer it back to the WG and, once a new document is advanced, 
issue a new IETF last call.

An example of an issue raised in WGLC (in August 2006) that I think 
should be addressed:

The document continues to use IETF Consensus as an allocation metric. 
That term is deprecated in 2434bis and should be replaced.  The editor 
appears to have agreed to make that change[2], and I've seen no 
follow-up discussion saying that shouldn't happen.

And an example of one of the changes that I think has received too 
little review:

The document allows templates to create IANA registries.  Is that 
altogether desirable?  Has the expert been given enough guidance to 
review such requests?

I have not attempted to do an exhaustive review of the 2929bis 
discussion, but I suspect there are other items in the above 
categories also.

On the positive side, I'm pleased that the document provides for 
permanently archived templates which can, in and of themselves, serve 
as adequate documentation of a typecode assignment.

[1] http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01208.html
[2] http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01410.html

-- Sam

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

---

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:24:28 -0500

Hi Sam,

It appears that, somehow, I overlooked message [2] below when I was
editing the document. Thanks for catching that. I'd be happy to make the
two changes agreed to: changing "who" to "whose" in one case (an error a
couple of other people have noticed) and changing "IETF Consensus" to
"IETF Review".

I believe that other changes you suggested were found by the WG Chair
not to have WG consensus.

Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Weiler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis (Domain Name System
(DNS) IANA Considerations) to BCP

[1]
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01208.html
[2]
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01410.html

-- Sam

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:03:05 -0500

At 11:50 04/12/2007, Sam Weiler wrote:
>the IESG refer it back to the WG and, once a new document is 
>advanced, issue a new IETF last call.

Sam,
most of the changes are results of the allocation experiment that was 
conducted. The working group was fully aware of them and the changes made to
the document see:
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00190.html

>The document continues to use IETF Consensus as an allocation 
>metric. That term is deprecated in 2434bis and should be 
>replaced.  The editor appears to have agreed to make that change[2], 
>and I've seen no follow-up discussion saying that shouldn't happen.

Yes this is an oversight on the editors part and mine as well, sorry.

>altogether desirable?  Has the expert been given enough guidance to 

This is an excellent IETF wide question it is outside the DNSEXT
WG expertize to judge this issue.
At this point there is no specific guidance to the expert(s) on
what to do in this case.

>discussion, but I suspect there are other items in the above categories also.

I hope there are not any more skeletons in the closet :-)

>permanently archived templates which can, in and of themselves, 
>serve as adequate documentation of a typecode assignment.
good.

>[2] http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01410.html

Olafur