[dns-dir] FW: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide (IANA Registrationof Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations) to ProposedStandard
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 03 June 2009 09:44 UTC
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: dns-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098643A6841 for <dns-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 02:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y4TTRcCcd4CD for <dns-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 02:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271553A6452 for <dns-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 02:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,297,1241409600"; d="scan'208";a="147511591"
Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2009 05:44:02 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2009 05:44:01 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:43:54 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040175735F@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide (IANA Registrationof Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations) to ProposedStandard
Thread-Index: AcnkLmV0KPkB4UonTjKpXGNz7/spUgAAV0qA
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: dns-dir@ietf.org
Subject: [dns-dir] FW: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide (IANA Registrationof Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations) to ProposedStandard
X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list <dns-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir>, <mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dns-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir>, <mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:44:05 -0000
Some DNS Consideration comments here from Pekka. Dan -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:33 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: enum-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide (IANA Registrationof Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations) to ProposedStandard On Tue, 26 May 2009, The IESG wrote: > - 'IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA > Considerations ' > <draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-16.txt> as a Proposed Standard This is an ops-dir review. I'm only superficially familiar with ENUM, so take the comments with a grain of salt. I did not see major issues with the document, but the document could be improved by a clarifying revision. Wrt. operational considerations, given that the document deals with IANA registrations, I do not see much that should be a cause for concern. Registration documents must include a section on DNS considerations, which could possibly discuss some operational aspects as well (some of this below). Personally identifiable information has already been highlighted in the document. Management-side of O&M does not appear to be relevant in this case. The usability and control of enum from users' point of view is a possible issue but that goes beyond the scope of this document. Some specific comments below: substantial ----------- 5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) .. I note that exampe DNS considerations mostly relate to DNS protocol. I wonder about DNS operations related considerations. For example, is the usage expected to incur a significant (quantifiable?) load on the name server chain? Are there recommendations/restrictions/assumptions wrt TTL of the records (somewhat related to the previous)? Further I assume that DNS records related to the enum services are "static" in such a fashion that they can be protected if needed by DNSSEC signing. Is this a correct assumption? There is no clear prohibition of defining "synthetic" or synthethizing DNS records that would be generated on the fly. (I'm not sure if this would even be interesting to someone...) semi-editorial -------------- This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registry for Enumservices, which was originally described in [RFC3761]. This document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761. .. yet in the header it says Obsoletes: 3761. What about the rest of 3761? I'd say it's best that the whole 3761 gets obsoleted in some manner. The IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount of variation in the format of Enumservice Specifications. The ENUM Working Group's view of what particular information is required and/or recommended has also evolved, and capturing these best current practices is helpful in both the creation of new Enumservice Specifications, as well as the revision or refinement of existing Enumservice Specifications. .. yet the revision of existing Enumservices Specification is only touched upon in Section 8, which says doing the revision is a MAY. Is this sufficient? (After reading the whole doc, it appears that there is an effort in progress to revise these, but it is not clear if that process is exhaustive.) In Section 9, you describe extension of existing enumservices. If an enum service is extended, does the extended version need to comply with this document (Section 8 could be read to imply that but this is not 100% clear)? Types and Subtypes MUST conform to the ABNF specified in [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]. The ABNF specified in [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] allows the "-" (dash) character for Types and Subtypes . .. when I search for "ABNF" in I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis, I come up with one hit, and it seems to be in an irrelevant spot. I'm not sure if ABNF is defined clearly enough in I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis (and that document could be improved); in addition, given this is not very clear, I'd suggest a more specific reference in this document (e.g. pointing to specific sections of 3761bis one should conform to). 6.5.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registration Document The expert might reject the Registration, which means the Expert Review Process is discontinued. For appeals, see Section 7.3. .. I'm not sure in which case the result might be a rejection instead of "changes needed", but should you also point to some other recourse other than the appeals process? For example, "Go back to step 1 and reconsider whether a registration is needed". :-) 7.2. Review Guidelines .. one of the things that could perhaps be explicitly listed here is verifying that the type name does not conflict with any well-known other name (e.g. the example given in the document where "imap" was proposed for "internet mapping" service). 11.1.4.2. Published as generic Specification .. in S 11.1.2 you require IANA to escrow the specification, so I guess it should be stated in the required IANA steps in the last paragraph of this section as well. 13.1. Normative References [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 2223, October 1997. .. this is a down-ref problem: BCP referring to an informational document. Is this critical for understanding this document? If not, it could be moved to an informative reference. editorial --------- 4.2.4. Data Type-Based Enumservice Class "Data Type" Enumservices typically refer to a specific data type or format, which may be addressed using one or more URI Schemes and protocols. It is RECOMMENDED to use a well known name of the data type or format as the Enumservice Type. Examples of such Enumservices include 'vpim' [RFC4238] and 'vCard' [RFC4969]. .. I would suggest replacing "vCard" with another example or removing it because it does not seem to conform to the RECOMMENDED all-lowercase representation. In Section 5.2: o Enumservice Subtype (<subtype>): .. I understand that subtype can be empty. Does this mean it's unspecified and/or omitted? You should probably describe what to do in this case; the preamble in S 5.2 seems to indicate that all the following elements are mandatory -- if that's not the case, the mandatory or optional ones should be clearly marked. 6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document If the Registration Document is to be published as RFC, the normal IETF publication process applies (see [instructions2authors]), i.e. the Registration Document is submitted to the RFC Editor in the form of an Internet Draft. For Independent Submission the guidelines in Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846] apply. .. the second part in first sentence (after i.e.) is misleading. While that is the ultimate "submission", if IETF publication process is followed, the document needs to go through a working group or via AD-sponsored paths, and finally it will end up at the RFC-editor as an Internet-draft. It is not submitted to the RFC-editor directly. This occurs only when when independent submission to RFC-editor is used. Rewording seems necessary. (It seems both these choices are acceptable and the author can pick one.) 6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document For publications as RFC Steps 6 below does not apply. ... The Step 6 below does only apply in case the Registration Document is to be published in a specification other than RFC. .. unnecessary duplication, remove one of these? In 11.1.3: [I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition] updates the existing Enumservices into the new IANA Registration Template. .. replaced by draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-00 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- [dns-dir] FW: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-enumserv… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)