Subject: RE: DNS IANA Considerations, draft-eastlake-dnsext-2929bis-00.txt

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:21:22 -0400

Hi,

See below at @@@

-----Original Message-----
From: Olaf M. Kolkman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:00 AM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: DNS IANA Considerations, draft-eastlake-dnsext-2929bis-00.txt

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:25:01 -0400
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Well, I'm open to suggestions as to what forumulation we want for these allocation decisions.

Thanks, Donald!

@@@ You're welcome.

> I could replace all occurances of "IETF Standards Action modified by [RFC 4020]" in the new draft with "the DNS Special Allocation policy" and then add a section defining that policy as
> 
> "1. IETF Standards Action or
>  2. Approval as an an Experimental Protocol or
>  3. As provided in RFC 4020, or its successor, for Early Allocation except that the crieria in Section 2 of RFC 4020 are replaced by the following:
>     3.a: The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
>          handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
>          (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
>          in an Internet draft that is intended to become Standards Track or
>          Expeirmental.
>     3.b: There is sufficient interest in early (pre-RFC) implementation and
>          deployment in the community as determined by working group
>          consensus."

I like this line of thought. 

One detail in 3.b above; which working group? What if
the I-D is a personnal submission that falls between working group
cracks.

@@@ There are always the Specification Required and the Private Use spaces of parameter values. Given that those avenues are also available for RR Types, I'm not all that worried about personal submissions. I guess it wouldn't hurt to say "... as determined by working group consensus (or the IESG in the case of individual submissions)."

I also think that you should add that the RR does not required special
processing for DNS servers and clients, name compression, is
case-insensitive, &c, &c. 

@@@ I suppose some narrow additional restrictions could be added but I'm worried about making it too complex and restrictive. The idea is to be lax :-)

In another message you wrote:

> I'll revise the 2929bis draft to liberalize most assignments along
> the lines of my message below and to add a policy for the AFSDB RR
> subtype field.

Donald, will you be in Paris? I'd like to have this on the DNSEXT's
meeting's agenda.

@@@ Yes, I will be in Paris and would be happy to have this on the DNSEXT agenda but I may have to leave around the middle of the day Thursday so it would work best if this was scheduled to be before that.

@@@ I have gone ahead and submitted a revision -01 of the 2929bis draft but would be happy to further modify it.

--Olaf

@@@ Thanks,
@@@ Donald

--
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: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:35:52 -0400

comments interleaved...

At 11:21 -0400 6/27/05, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
>>  I could replace all occurances of "IETF Standards Action modified 
>>by [RFC 4020]" in the new draft with "the DNS Special Allocation 
>>policy" and then add a section defining that policy as
>>
>>   3. As provided in RFC 4020, or its successor, for Early 
>>Allocation except that the crieria in Section 2 of RFC 4020 are 
>>replaced by the following:
>@@@ There are always the Specification Required and the Private Use spaces
>@@@ of parameter values. Given that those avenues are also available for RR
>@@@ Types, I'm not all that worried about personal submissions. I guess it
>@@@ wouldn't hurt to say "... as determined by working group consensus (or
>@@@ the IESG in the case of individual submissions)."

Given the direction of the IESG workload, I question laying more on 
that group.  Also, this doesn't really address the "which WG" that 
gives consensus.

It's possible that DNSEXT WG will someday close (looking at the 6 
work items listed on the charter - they are [very arguably] nearly 
done or languishing).  If that happens we wind up with a situation 
similar to EPP - a WG-less protocol with about 4 or so extensions 
passed since the end of its group.  (EPP has an IANA registry.  No 
"standards action" or "specification required" is needed to update it 
- although the nature of the registry means that its an "unfair" 
comparison.)

Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree.  Getting a reserved spot in an 
IANA administered registry ought to take a lot of work.  You can 
accomplish that while still address the needs of "early allocations" 
via another means.  For example, we could suggest that "early" 
implementers choose a number (as appropriate) consistent with the 
number range they want to fit into - and use that in their documents. 
If there is no conflict, they get the number once they pass the high 
hurdles.  If there is, well, they get another number and will have to 
re-code anyway.

If the number selection comes from the WG, then it's possible two 
post-DNSEXT WGs could assume the same number.  If IANA chooses, then 
individual submitters will be gated on IESG action.

>@@@ I suppose some narrow additional restrictions could be added but I'm
>@@@ worried about making it too complex and restrictive. The idea is to be
>@@@ lax :-)

Lax for getting implementers what they need, not so lax (maybe) in 
what gets into the registry.  Certainly not vice versa. ;)

>@@@ Yes, I will be in Paris and would be happy to have this on the DNSEXT
>@@@ agenda but I may have to leave around the middle of the day Thursday so
>@@@ it would work best if this was scheduled to be before that.
>
>@@@ I have gone ahead and submitted a revision -01 of the 2929bis draft but
>@@@ would be happy to further modify it.
>
>--Olaf
>
>@@@ Thanks,
>@@@ Donald

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.