Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with DISCUSS)

It is intended as ps, given the changes I think advancement to IS is
not warrented notwithstanding wide deployment.

The duration of the last call looks to be my bad and I will have to
correct that.

joel

On 1/6/16 8:55 AM, Mankin, Allison wrote:
> Alvaro,
> 
> The draft aims for PS, not IS. I think you've found an XML editing bug on our part. We wouldn't expect to go IS, given this bis includes new material. So this was a great catch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Allison
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 11:43, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I don’t have concerns over the technical content of this document, but I
>> do have want to raise a process-related DISCUSS.
>>
>> The Intended RFC Status of this document is “Internet Standard”, which
>> seems like a logical progression from RFC5966 (Proposed Standard). 
>> However, I am concerned that the proper process was not followed:
>>
>> 1. RFC6410 calls for “an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks”, but
>> the LS started on Nov/23 and ended on Dec/7, 2 weeks.
>>
>> 2. In looking at the archives I couldn’t find any discussion about
>> changing the maturity level.
>>
>> 3. It also concerns me that the changes go beyond a simple revision of
>> the old text.  For example, there are recommendations that are completely
>> new and for topics that were not even mentioned in the original (e.g.
>> pipelining).
>>
>>
>> I may have missed the discussions in the archive.  Not being a DNS expert
>> I may also be overestimating the changes to this document. But knowing
>> that the “document was actively discussed and reviewed” and that it “had
>> a broad discussion as the wording of several points were more accurately
>> described” (from the Shepherd’s write up), I think that this document may
>> not be ready to be an Internet Standard.
>>
>> The obvious solution to this DISCUSS is to change the intended status to
>> Proposed Standard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 

Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with DISCUSS)

Attachment: signature.asc