Re: [DNSOP] IANA Policy for SVCB

Also let's ensure there are several experts like we have for new RR Types.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 4:06 PM Eric Orth <ericorth=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I'm happy as long as things are still fast and easy enough to support
> new/experimental/prototype usage.  I think Expert Review with the proposed
> stuff for that expert to review is all reasonable for that goal.  If we
> start getting into stricter bars than Expert Review, that's where we'd have
> to start discussing the complexity of breaking off separate private-use and
> experimental blocks with a lower bar.
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 3:10 PM Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> wrote:
>
>> I think Expert Review makes sense (with the expert reviewing the SHOULD
>> around the specification).
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:34 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Tommy.
>>>
>>> Selecting an expert who is able to recognize when wider review might
>>> help is a far lower bar than the one Ray suggests might be necessary.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, at 05:29, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>>> > If this space is not extensible from non-IETF RFCs, we’ll have missed
>>> > the mark. The space is designed to be large (65K) to allow new work to
>>> > easily use this extensibility. We don’t need to be too conservative
>>> > with this space.
>>> >
>>> > I disagree that there wouldn’t be good experts — we have authors of
>>> the
>>> > document who have seen it through, and we have more people using this
>>> > RR and gaining expertise.
>>> >
>>> > Expert review is the right balance here.
>>> >
>>> > Tommy
>>> >
>>> >> On Mar 22, 2022, at 9:24 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:10 AM Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> wrote:
>>> >>> I am concerned that the set of Expert Reviewers necessary to handle
>>> SVCB
>>> >>> needs to have both expert DNS experience *and* detailed knowledge of
>>> the
>>> >>> SVCB model for this to work.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am not sure there's anybody who fits that criteria.
>>> >>
>>> >> Specification Required also assumes a community that can produce
>>> them, which presumably contains the right experts.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are we actually moving toward IETF Review here?
>>> >>
>>> >> -MSK
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> DNSOP mailing list
>>> >> DNSOP@ietf.org
>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > DNSOP mailing list
>>> > DNSOP@ietf.org
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>