Re: [dnsext] [IANA #434639] Re: CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Thu, 10 March 2011 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B943A6A7D for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:09:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 C4a7-mClf51L for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBD73A6A5D for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6569C1ECB408; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:10:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:10:23 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-questions@iana.org>
Message-ID: <20110310211023.GI57756@shinkuro.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-434639@icann.org> <20110218213453.GB96163@registro.br> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103100742001.60284@fledge.watson.org> <rt-3.8.HEAD-7525-1299787830-693.434639-7-0@icann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <rt-3.8.HEAD-7525-1299787830-693.434639-7-0@icann.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] [IANA #434639] Re: CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:09:09 -0000

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:10:30PM +0000, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > Is it really appropriate to allow a template to create IANA 
> > registries?  It does seem odd to me that a template can create an IANA 
> > registry when the i-d it cites can't itself create a registry until 
> > published as an RFC.  Perhaps IANA should comment on that.
> 
> Requests to create registries should be published in an RFC. 

Creating a completely new registry, yes.  But since the template in
RFC 5395 explicitly asks whether a new sub-registry to DNS Parameters,
surely such a sub-registry can be created as part of the creation of
the RRTYPE, no?  Otherwise, that ought to be called out as one of the
reasons not to approve the RRTYPE, no?

Best,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.