[DNSOP] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 02 June 2021 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DD13A41BB; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 05:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, michelle.cotton@iana.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.30.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <162263792401.16898.6094340099632095250@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 05:45:24 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2e5rVlb8c5qxjWOmdyrAe0fDuXg>
Subject: [DNSOP] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 12:45:25 -0000

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-03: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for the work on this document.

(This is a "let's talk" DISCUSS, which I don't expect to hold after the
telechat) I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to add a step where IANA gets the
help of the designated experts from each respective registry when elements are
added to the DNS class or RR type registries, either by the experts creating
the substatements to be added, or at least checking and confirming those
created by IANA.

A couple of minor comments below.



1. -----

   models along with standard management protocols such as NETCONF and
   RESTCONF can be effectively used in DNS operations, too.  In fact,

FP: Please expand NETCONF and RESTCONF on first use.

2. -----

FP: I believe it would be good to add a sentence in the terminology section
stating that DNS terminology is used throughout the document, and point to RFC
8499 and/or RFC 1035. I think informatively would be enough.