Re: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 10/10/2018 10:52 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I think this document needs to state explicitly which updates apply to which
> existing RFCs. That is, I would expect to see in sections 2.1,  2.2, and 2.3
> the list of which documents are updated by each section. I realize this can be
> intuited, but typically for avoidance of doubt authors specify precisely which
> updates apply to which documents. This will also clear up the unused references
> that idnits is pointing out.

What is the downside of using the existing text, as compared against the 
effort (and delay -- quite possibly infinite) caused by requiring 
development of the considerable detail that you are calling for?

My question is not about the difference in cleanliness but about 
serious, practical risk.


> I would also like to  understand why this is going for BCP. There is
> effectively no shepherd write-up for this draft (it's just a copy of the
> write-up for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf and talks about this document as the
> "companion" document) so there is no explanation there. One effect of this
> being BCP is that it adds a huge number of documents to the downref registry.
> It's not clear to me that the upside of that is bigger than the downside.

I've no comment about status choice.

Concerning the shepherd writeup, I'm not understanding what problem(s) 
it is causing.

I gather that your main point is that making this Proposed would be better?


> Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3: I don't understand why the paragraphs "If a public
> specification that defines ... MUST be entered into this registry, if it is not
> already registered" are needed, since the same normative requirement is
> generically stated in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.

Good point.  I've changed those 3 bits of text to a commentary form:

      <t>Note that a public specification, which defines use of an RRset 
and calls for the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, its global 
underscored name -- the one closest to the root -- is required to be 
entered into this registry, if it is not already registered. <xref 
target="Attrleaf"></xref>.</t>


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net