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

"Paul Hoffman" <> Mon, 10 April 2017 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA11F120227 for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UTMQlWu0aJe0 for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Opus1.Proper.COM []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81E6B129A9D for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v3AHYwKI026490 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:34:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: Paul Hoffman <>
To: Ralph Droms <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:35:12 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:35:20 -0000

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