Re: [DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 10 Apr 2017, at 7:38, Ralph Droms wrote:

> I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 gives the intended status of 
> the document as Informational, while it is listed in the datatracker 
> as "In WG Last Call: Proposed Standard".
>
> There are arguments in favor of each status.  The relevant text is in 
> section 5 of RFC 6761:
>
>    An IETF "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" document specifying
>    some new naming behaviour, which requires a Special-Use Domain Name
>    be reserved to implement this desired new behaviour, needs to 
> contain
>    a subsection of the "IANA Considerations" section titled "Domain 
> Name
>    Reservation Considerations" giving answers in the seven categories
>    listed below.
>
> Publishing draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 as Proposed Standard meets the 
> "Standards Action" requirement.  However, Proposed Standard may not be 
> appropriate for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08, as the document does not 
> specify a new protocol, as such.  draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 does 
> specify certain behaviors for components of the Internet, which could 
> be thought of as providing for interoperability so that Proposed 
> Standard status would be appropriate.
>
> On the other hand, publishing draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 as 
> Informational would require an "IESG Approval" document to meet the 
> requirements of RFC 6761.  A short sentence added to 
> draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 is likely all that would be needed, to the 
> effect of "The IESG has reviewed this document and approves of the 
> request to add .alt to the Special Use Domain Names registry."
>
> In any event, in my opinion the WG needs to express its explicit 
> consensus about its choice of intended status for 
> draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08.

Given that most people don't understand the difference between levels, 
it would take less explanation to make this Standards Track to meet 
"Standards Action" in RFC 6761. But if people want to leave this as 
Informational, I agree with Ralph that a sentence like he has given 
(probably at the end of the Introduction) would be needed for clarity.

--Paul Hoffman