Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2929bis

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:45:21 +0200

--On onsdag, onsdag 19 jul 2006 14.02.24 -0400 "Ólafur Guðmundsson
/DNSEXT  co-chair" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> This message starts at 3 week last call for this document ending
> on midnight August 10'th 2006 (Reykjavik time).

I have read the draft and support its publication as BCP successor to 2929. 

Regards, 
-- 
Måns Nilsson                     Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204   cell                       KTHNOC
+46 8 790 6518  office                  MN1334-RIPE

I'm having an EMOTIONAL OUTBURST!!  But, uh, WHY is there a WAFFLE in
my PAJAMA POCKET??

---

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:05:31 -0400 (EDT)

Summary: I do NOT support the publication of this document in its
present form.

While I strongly support a templating system for typecodes, I don't
like this one.  First, I'm not sure we need evaulation criteria 3-8 --
why aren't 1 & 2 enough?  Second, I'd rather see a template that can,
in most cases, provide the full spec of the typecode, including the
wire format and presentation format, so that reference to an outside
document is not needed -- I'd like to see the template itself be an
adequate record for most typecode requests.  I'll try to post a sample
template to the list.

It's probably unwise to specify the namedroppers list in Sections
3.1.1 and 3.1.3, since lists occasionally change.  Instead say: "The
DNSSEXT WG mailing list, or another mailing list designated by
the IESG.  Currently, this list is ..."

Seceral sections (3.1.5, 3.2) use "IETF Consensus" as an allocation
metric.  That term is deprecated in 2434bis and should be replaced.

As Thierry Moreau noted: In section 3.1, sentence starting with "Thus
far ...", is missing reference to DLV and TA assignments.  Similarly,
those codepoints need to be excluded from the meta range (and it
should be explicitly called out in the breakdown of the space that
these are normal data types, not "meta types...which it is safe to
simply discard").

Section 3.1.1 item 2: "(b) a Meta TYPE who processing is optional,
i.e., which it is safe to simply discard.".  First, there's the odd
'who'.  Second, is 'discarding' really the right answer when a
recursive resolver gets a meta type query?

-- Sam

--
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/>