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

I have some editorial comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08.  I don't think any of these suggestions would make material changes to the meaning of the document, but would improve consistency, readability, etc.

Given the multiple meanings of the word "context", the first sentence of the Abstract might be clearer as:

   This document reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label for
   domain names intended for non-DNS resolution systems.

Would it be clearer to use "domain name" and cite RFC 7719 in the second sentence of section 1, instead of "Names that look like DNS names (a series of labels separated with dots) [...]"

In section 1, s/Special Use Domain/Special Use Domain Name/ to match the name of the IANA registry.

In section 1.2, I suggest citing RFC 7719 for definitions of "domain name" and "TLD".

In section 2, s/looked up/resolved/

Should RFC 2119 terms (e.g., "should not" and "SHOULD NOT") be capitalized consistently in section 4.1?

I don't think an RF 2119 "SHOULD" is appropriate for advice to human operators of DNS servers.

In section 5, I think the parenthetical would be better written without the parentheses, as the text in parentheses seems to be as important as the rest of the text.

- Ralph

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> 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.
> 
> - Ralph
> 
>> On Apr 7, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> 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 <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400,
>>> Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote 
>>> a message of 92 lines which said:
>>> 
>>>> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
>>>> 
>>>> "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/>
>>> 
>>> 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
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 