Re: [dnsext] RR type IANA requirements discussion

Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de> Mon, 16 April 2012 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D4A21F85B7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.965
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.784, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 798Q5E0LTLGV for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7B921F85B6 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA087715469; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:31:09 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id AAA17996; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:31:08 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201204162231.AAA17996@TR-Sys.de>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:31:07 +0200
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] RR type IANA requirements discussion
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:32:25 -0000

Regarding the renewed discussion on IANA requirements for RRtype
registrations:

Please keep in mind what draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00 now says ...

a) in Section 3.1.1 (DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy):

   IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. In
   addition, if the required description of the RRTYPE applied for is
   referenced by URL, a copy of the document so referenced should be
   included in the archive.

b) in the IANA Considearions (Section 5):

          [...]. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE
   allocation templates and referred documentation (unless it is readily
   available at a stable URI). [...]

Isn't that clear enough now and doesn't that satisfy the strong
desire of the community to have the registry unambiguously document
what actually has been allocated for a new RR type ?

Donald told me recently that he thought the 2-week expert review
period would suffice because the Expert will check on consistency
and completeness of the template and the referred-to documentation
and simply will quickly reject the registration request if it doesn't.
If changes are needed (e.g. a different mnemonic will be going to be
assigned for clarity -- as it has happened), the expert will reject
and the applicant will modify the template and documentation and
re-submit.  A template cannot be approved unless it matches what is
going to be registered; that needs to be ensured by the Experts and
IANA in the future, isn't it?  (I.e., it MUST NOT happen again that
the registry entry does not match the template/documentation linked
to the registry entry.)
Now that the WG prefers a longer period, that doesn't change the
procedure -- or did I miss something?


Kind regards,
  Alfred.