From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
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: <333CCE99-82E2-44C9-97ED-2222540097ED@gmail.com>
 <20170401201727.GA5948@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
 <D3AA90CF-667A-4C4D-8ABF-DB8242E31A1D@gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <D3AA90CF-667A-4C4D-8ABF-DB8242E31A1D@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <2CB23C57-AB73-483B-AE9F-834A933D3EC6@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DevW3mO-RkOqhuqAoHgZzOhA7Do>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
Precedence: list

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". =20

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 <suzworldwide@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> We=E2=80=99re hereby formally extending it to next Wednesday, April =
12.
>=20
> As always for WGLC=E2=80=94 we need to hear both support and =
opposition for taking this draft to the next step in the process.
>=20
> thanks,
> Suzanne  & TIm
>=20
>=20
>> On Apr 1, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400,
>> Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote=20
>> a message of 92 lines which said:
>>=20
>>> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
>>>=20
>>> "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain"
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ =
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/>
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Editorial :
>>=20
>> Section 1:
>>=20
>> "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"?
>>=20
>> Section 5 :
>>=20
>> After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference =
to
>> RFC 7626?
>>=20
>> Normative references:
>>=20
>> Why is RFC 6303 a normative reference? It is no longer used.
>>=20
>> Why is RFC 7686 a normative reference? It is just an example.
>>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop