Re: [dnsext] draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes as AD sponsored individual sumission...

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-04-18, at 09:46, Thierry Moreau <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Joe Abley wrote:
>> On 2013-04-15, at 12:10, Doug Barton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> It's also not clear why IANA has already assigned code points for this (as described in your text).
>> Because the expert review passed, and IANA was following the required procedure, I think.
> 
> [reviewing the discussion from a process perspective -- what is the root cause of the controversy?]
> 
> It appears that the bar for RR type allocation is lower than for an informational RFC.

The RRType application registry's bar is "expert review". The bar for publication of an informational RFC depends on what stream you follow, whether it's a working group document, etc. It's not clear to me that one bar is obviously lower; they're just different.

> To which extent should the IESG lower the bar for a specific I-D on the ground that it acquired an RR type?

I'm not sure that it should (nor that anybody has suggested it should, or would).

> Incidentally:
> 
> Process-wise, we could be in front of a "submarine RFC" case: IANA (or the expert?) would have followed the RFC6895 procedures before it was published.

As I understand it, the directions in draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05 were followed by the IANA once that document was approved by the IESG. It looks like that happened in December last year. The document emerged from the RFC editor queue as RFC6895 two days ago.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that "IESG approval" is the trigger here, rather than "RFC published".

> It bugs me that the IANA allocation process uses a mailing list a) not listed in the IANA web pages, and b) (I guess) subject to the IETF IPR disclosure policy by virtue of being run under the ietf.org domain.

I'm not sure what mailing list you're talking about. Applications for RRTYPE code point assignments are sent to [e-mail], which seems to forward to a ticket system at the IANA.

> I am not particularly expert in those details, but somehow I care that
> 1) stakeholders are created equal, but some are more equal than others (e.g. those aware in advance of the submarine RFC), and

I had no particular awareness of the process when I applied for code points for EUI48 and EUI64 -- I just found the relevant registry at www.iana.org and clicked the link above the table. That took me to draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05 which contained instructions; I followed them.

> 2) who controls the process controls the outcome.

My experience with this application was that the process was efficient, easy to find and easy to understand.


Joe