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

Ralph Droms <> Mon, 10 April 2017 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CC412944F for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AJy7DuKNl_oq for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4F5128CFF for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c45so64720076qtb.1 for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=/GcjjI9ydb+0QCrUnCf1DxFQwEVpGRl7YUzll6RGw9w=; b=kINFLHva0d+o7s/4TH1/iklC69y0vXvHcISUIDRvfMqr8qILkrysbZH74KfEmDLZcX 2tanqM6/HpLJ3PiQXwj/4HaCsEdIrFBzUdZw4WCFbrxOEVpl3P/oseW16rWa94qU2mKN euemzxhSf2uoP9ueUSAwk49RJSNYagmEeCe5+wH3Hq10PqPXBsxKkOjNBfEMqOMjj0er TLWUCYmzOAvzgX6nPpp/+HnuOdOvxpR6Jp4b7O/aRTOG/N3EsdLBfYshupy1h5L3AzNj cnX78Y8KMLB/WE8aSaxsegbNR5papkxHI8+ng29Zc2voseAbOt6Dl0od4hXaUOIQ0BEs VmjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=/GcjjI9ydb+0QCrUnCf1DxFQwEVpGRl7YUzll6RGw9w=; b=d8cx384vJHTIGpkdxbtMrG7cY1llrCklp+k+AEId5ivm/Zn19KZcxJelg/2vAGbenE 0hrY9BxAqU2lgh4CTH8o6HHMlU1TdXbWXbyi3C93aiKlRXpPlfa4cXtFF8jcV5HN9bQE 55J4BJLk823VxL8R14mS3+jP9k9yyAr7B4RQYNsMp/4dZOu8fHrFTUyFB6URXxQV9Rkx f8s0RuGbJc9N4Gox40ZAUKGmvXrXSOBt3/jiL1A/eqcHgPC7idch1FkbDiScjIwIbAsz OXy5nYJqW0W8Z8BVXuOjxBk5mBvxn3CKROCLwx7lGoofhoxESNm4xz8SUWNtQ53hdQbE L+RQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6UWRJkGgUyjf2Pu1SyA59KNI56guarkojwuvACmrBFhgv214Ikc7ydpZTNlBAJvg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p22mr8061304qtb.167.1491835093431; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:e13b:ccff:f4d6:c26c? ([2601:18f:801:600:e13b:ccff:f4d6:c26c]) by with ESMTPSA id 127sm8857156qkf.64.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Droms <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:38:09 -0400
References: <> <> <>
To: dnsop <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
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 14:38:17 -0000

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.

- Ralph

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Suzanne Woolf <> wrote:
> Hi,
> We had initially scheduled the WGLC on this document to be over by now. However, the flurry of activity around the review we were asked to do on the homenet-dot draft, and the general traffic level on the list during IETF 98, suggested to the chairs that we should extend the WGLC.
> We’re hereby formally extending it to next Wednesday, April 12.
> As always for WGLC— we need to hear both support and opposition for taking this draft to the next step in the process.
> thanks,
> Suzanne  & TIm
>> On Apr 1, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400,
>> Suzanne Woolf <> wrote 
>> a message of 92 lines which said:
>>> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
>>> "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain"
>>> <>
>> I've read -08 and I believe I understand this draft. I'm not convinced
>> it's useful (most users of alternative resolution systems won't use it
>> and, anyway, I'm not even sure it will be added in the Special-Use
>> registry, which was wrongly frozen by the IESG) but I don't see big
>> issues with the draft, it seems to me it correctly describes the new
>> TLD.
>> Editorial :
>> Section 1:
>> "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"?
>> Section 5 :
>> After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference to
>> RFC 7626?
>> Normative references:
>> Why is RFC 6303 a normative reference? It is no longer used.
>> Why is RFC 7686 a normative reference? It is just an example.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list