Subject: RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs -Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record Types to Proposed Standardraft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:15:56 +0200 (CEST)

This document was discussed by the IESG yesterday.

Based on the comment from the IANA (below) I think it makes sense
to say in the IANA considerations section that the IANA will
request expert review (by an expert designated by the IESG) for all
RR types that they are asked to allocate in order to check the 
compression issue.

We could either designate an expert now or wait until the first such request
arrives from the IANA.

   Erik

>----- Begin Included Message -----<

Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:03:58 -0700
From: "Michelle S. Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: FW: Last Call: Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record Types to
Proposed Standard To: "Erik Nordmark" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Erik,

Sorry for being late on this.  Jon's recent comment reminded me
of the outstanding issue.

The IANA Consideratios says the following:

9. IANA Considerations

   The IANA is hereby requested to verify that specifications for new RR
   types requesting an RR type number comply with this specification.
   In particular, the IANA MUST NOT assign numbers to new RR types whose
   specification allows embedded domain names to be compressed.

This is not quite clear yet.  If we receive a request for a RR type
number, I understand the specification for the RR type should comply
with this specification.  I'm worried about haveing the expertise to 
be able to review the spec and make sure that it complies with this
doc and to decide whether or not the spec allows embedded domain names.

Will there be an expert for these types of requests to assist the IANA?

Hope that makes my concerns clear.

Thanks,

Michelle

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Erik
Nordmark
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 6:45 AM
To: Andreas Gustafsson
Cc: Erik Nordmark; IANA; [email-masked]; Randy Bush; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Last Call: Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record Types to
Proposed Standard

> The draft does not ask IANA to enforce anything in the case of private
> use. It says "The IANA is hereby requested to verify that
> specifications for new RR types *requesting an RR type number* comply
> with this specification" (my emphasis).  In the case of private use,
> no RR type is being requested, and therefore IANA is not asked to
> verify compliance - in fact, IANA is not involved at all.

Good point.

IANA,
is there something which needs to be clarified?

  Erik

>----- End Included Message -----<

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 13:34:17 +0200

> RR types that they are asked to allocate in order to check the 

That expert should also evaluate the per RR versioning issue.

-Peter

---

From: [email-masked] (Andreas Gustafsson)
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 10:39:00 -0700 (PDT)

> We could either designate an expert now or wait until the first such request

The IANA considerations section of unknown-rrs predates RFC2929, and
many of the concerns that led to the existing wording are now
adequately covered by RFC2929.

RFC2929 allows for three types of allocation in separate RR type
number ranges: IETF Consensus, Specification Required, and Private
Use.  When an allocation is made based on IETF consensus, the RR type
specification has already received extensive review in the working
group, the IETF last call, and the IESG; therefore, I don't see a need
for an additional step of expert review in this case.  In the case of
Private Use, no review is possible since neither IETF nor IANA is
involved.

This leaves Specification Required as a case where expert review could
potentially be useful.  However, since the reason for having a
separate Specification Required policy in the first place would be to
provide a more streamlined option for registering new types, it would
seem that introducing a mandatory step of expert review would diminish
the utility of having multiple policies.

Therefore, my suggestion is to simply remove the IANA Considerations
section from the draft.  Any objections?
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [email-masked]