Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Fri, 24 March 2017 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EADC1296B5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gh87Iyn60nH5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366301296C6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:ac19:abff:fe8c:5d34] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:ac19:abff:fe8c:5d34]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E302A6039F; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:17:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1490357842; bh=KRGP2NABks4qfsSB/5KhCamktw8HrsF4NLqjJbEW5ik=; h=To:From:Date; b=U4jqJU6FtUe1KwApCTCsMlfTnWUT4SSDUSQYJStH93s+zivnV3FKyizhevK4D6/CZ mE5Xeh1POLWcLDy6suNIkNsW4bXhrVvCcRrztWHAbJWnYNaZrot7qxVR4WB92JIabo 8/Q22cH+R/ItATDHEAtBuM66k/yBBHyzeLeO9RkQ=
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <148943321331.20401.7762893838737928060@ietfa.amsl.com> <630A7AFE-B9D4-4E77-8744-0D6FD0F5A000@gmail.com> <84ab880c-885a-9c4f-7857-5adf7d18b6e1@nic.cz> <AA408704-7D85-4FDD-BDF4-BCC34220D657@gmail.com>
From: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <3378ac6d-c8c8-28e5-b762-23d0d5f0d660@nic.cz>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:17:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AA408704-7D85-4FDD-BDF4-BCC34220D657@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZX88_zmcjyLJUIYylcMHzeyEyPo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:17:33 -0000

On 21.3.2017 13:23, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Petr, thanks for your review and feedback...
> 
>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On 14.3.2017 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>> draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 includes revised text to address issues raised during the WG last call and other editorial improvements.  The list of issues, discussion and resolution are in GitHub: https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps
>>>
>>> There is one substantial addition to the list of problems in section 3: the use of DNSSEC with Special-Use Domain Names.
>>
>> The 03 version is a very good one.
>>
>> I would like to comment on one side-effect of the changes:
>> The Summary section was removed and the text moved elsewhere. IMHO this
>> makes the document less understandable to a person who was not involved
>> with its development.
>>
>> For this reason I propose new Summary section, which would be basically
>> current 4.1.4.  Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names.
>>
>> The reference to these two I-Ds can be at the same place as current 4.1.4.
>>
>>
>> So the new text would look like:
>>
>> 4.1.4.  Expired Internet Drafts Relating to SUDN
>>   /links to/
>>   [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds]
>>   [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names]
>>
>> 6. Summary
>>   As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use
>>   Domain Name registry, as documented in
>>   [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and
>>   [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], the IAB initiated a review
>>   of the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry.
>>   This review was identified as in the charter of the IETF DNSOP
>>   working group, and the review has been conducted in that working
>>   group.  The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] notified ICANN of
>>   the review, affirmed that the discussion would be "open and
>>   transparent to participation by interested parties" and explicitly
>>   invited members of the ICANN community to participate.
>>   This document is a product of the IETF DNSOP working group review of
>>   the registry process in RFC 6761.
>>
>>
>> I believe that original 4.1.4 nicely summarizes what this document is about.
> 
> I agree that some of the text belongs in a more prominent place, to alert the reader to the process behind the document.  I've opened an issue: draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
> 
> Our proposed solution is to move some of the detail behind this document from section 4.1.4 to the Introduction.
> 
> OLD:
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    [...]
> 
>    Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for
>    Special-Use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding
>    to the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies
>    might be implemented.  Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF
>    has been asked to designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in
>    this registry.  During the evaluation process for these Special-Use
>    Domain Names, the IETF encountered several different sorts of issues.
>    Because of this, the IETF has decided to investigate the problem and
>    decide if and how the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether it
>    should be deprecated.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    [...]
> 
>    Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for
>    Special-Use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding
>    to the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies
>    might be implemented.  Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF
>    has been asked to designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in
>    this registry.  During the evaluation process for these Special-Use
>    Domain Names, the IETF encountered several different sorts of issues.
>    Because of this, the IETF has decided to investigate the problem and
>    decide if and how the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether it
>    should be deprecated.  The IETF DSNOP working group charter was
>    extended to include conducting a review of the process for adding
>    names to the registry that is defined in RFC 6761. This document is a
>    product of that review.
> 
> OLD:
> 
> 4.1.4.  Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names
> 
>    As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use
>    Domain Name registry, as documented in
>    [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and
>    [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], the IAB initiated a review
>    of the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry.
>    This review was identified as in the charter of the IETF DNSOP
>    working group, and the review has been conducted in that working
>    group.  The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] notified ICANN of
>    the review, affirmed that the discussion would be "open and
>    transparent to participation by interested parties" and explicitly
>    invited members of the ICANN community to participate.
> 
>    This document is a product of the IETF DNSOP working group review of
>    the registry process in RFC 6761.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 4.1.4.  Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names
> 
>    As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use
>    Domain Name registry, as documented in
>    [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and
>    [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], a review was chartered
>    of the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry
>    (as explained earlier).  The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS]
>    notified ICANN of the review, affirmed that the discussion would be
>    "open and transparent to participation by interested parties" and
>    explicitly invited members of the ICANN community to participate.
> 
> - Ralph

Sounds good to me, thank you!

Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

>>> In the authors' opinion, draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 addresses all of the WG last call issues and the document is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.
>>>
>>> - Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:26 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>       Title           : Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement
>>>>       Authors         : Ted Lemon
>>>>                         Ralph Droms
>>>>                         Warren Kumari
>>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt
>>>> 	Pages           : 27
>>>> 	Date            : 2017-03-13
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>  The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761
>>>>  has been shown through experience to present unanticipated
>>>>  challenges.  This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive,
>>>>  of the problems that have been identified.  In addition it reviews
>>>>  the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications
>>>>  and some publications from other organizations relating to Special-
>>>>  Use Domain Names.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/
>>>>
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC