Subject: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:47:31 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
	Author(s)       : Donald E. Eastlake
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2012-03-27

   This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
   parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name
   System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error
   codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record
   subtypes.  It obsoletes RFC 6195.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt

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

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:12:17 -0400 (EDT)

As I said at the microphone in Paris, I would strongly prefer to see 
typecode templates posted publicly in all cases.  I see no need to 
shorten the review period beyond the current three weeks.

Furthermore, as I pointed out on this list on 7 October, IANA seems to 
not be maintaining the archive of templates as requested in both 
RFC5395 and RFC6195.  If we're are going to keep using this template 
system to allocate typecodes, we need that archive.  Absent a 
commitment from IANA to maintain that archive, preferably backed up 
with evidence that they have populated that archive with the old 
templates, I would prefer to see us back out the RFC5395 changes to 
the typecode allocation process and revert to the RFC2929 rules.

-- Sam

---

From: Frederico A C Neves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:44:33 -0300

> shorten the review period beyond the current three weeks.

I agree with that and for the purpose of not depending on a dying
working group mailing list, I would suggest the creation of an
specific public list for this registry.

IANA or the acting experts on the past allocations could post the old
templates and the registry could simply reference this list archive as
a way to maintain the history of this allocations.

Fred