[DNSOP] Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Peter Thomassen <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Thank you for re-raising this! We've been waiting for it :)

On 3/5/25 03:24, John Scudder via Datatracker wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for this document. While my knowledge of the subject area is limited, it
> seems clear and well-written.
> 
> I have one point to DISCUSS. Actually, we already are discussing it, in my
> follow-up to Roman's ballot,
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0T2AHx1K8M8U0tc7Ec0AIoEphoo/ et
> seq. (we wandered off of the public mailing list archive after that one
> though). The reason I'm capturing this as a DISCUSS point is that I think, as
> we discussed, what's in 07 isn't OK -- either there needs to be some kind of
> guidance to the Designated Expert(s), or the policy needs to be changed to one
> that doesn't require such guidance. I don't mind what solution is chosen, as
> long as there is one.

The authors opted for adding more useful guidance for experts. We now have:

NEW
    [...] Expert reviewers should take into consideration the
    following points, but are being designated as experts for a reason,
    so they should be given substantial latitude:

    *  Point squatting should be discouraged.  Reviewers are encouraged
       to get sufficient information for registration requests to ensure
       that the usage is not going to duplicate one that is already
       registered and that the point is likely to be used in deployments.
       The code points tagged as "Private Use" are intended for testing
       purposes and closed environments.  Code points in other ranges
       should not be assigned for testing.

    *  A specification of a scheme is desirable, but early assignment
       before a specification is available is also possible.  When
       specifications are not provided, the description provided needs to
       have sufficient information to identify what the point is being
       used for.

    *  Experts should take into account that field values are fit for
       purpose.  For example, the mnemonic should be indicative and and
       have a plausible connection to the scheme's notification
       mechanism.

If this looks OK to you, we'll submit a new revision with it once the submission cut-off is over. Meanwhile, here's the diff:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://peterthomassen.github.io/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify/20250305_dnsdir/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify.txt&url_2=https://peterthomassen.github.io/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify/20250306_iesg/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify.txt

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have only one other point to raise -- In Section 4.3 you have "NOTIFY(CDS)
> messages carrying notification payloads (records) for several child zones MUST
> be discarded, as sending them is an error." Shouldn't that be "more than one
> child zone" instead of "several" (which my dictionary defines as "more than two
> but not many")?

Yes, probably; shall fix. (TIL!)

Best,
Peter + co-authors