Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Tue, 30 October 2018 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 EE3ED12D4F2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
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 GtbCdep60jAm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6126912D4EA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id e22-v6so3127269pfn.8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VEnAbAkui3CdOJJPaFTfnTnwzADrAvan1rPcqFlIDvw=; b=ZPFp7ZzGjrPukjbygfJ3Q4G9fn4O73WFheGgLXevirVYwJ8q4huknm1QKuyN74XEGR FlCoFctEtxCwQR7jMbLNUS0AcX+Z6dsWEoGEIft3JTg3lFjOarTskaSTk+z9bcwVlD1v 1usosRWDg5nuZM67D608+M/Rb3+sTGZ7AyDuE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VEnAbAkui3CdOJJPaFTfnTnwzADrAvan1rPcqFlIDvw=; b=Y2GXgv89Inx+BhrmX1PrMi4OBvntjTYkH/4CKnqvtai0AcQfyy3hvs3pDbkw5URozT eXuRvirva6vgEjiHRI6rvTGej4fLa4Ih2HukT6rr0hRB7Ztnqz90GE/gq0VabGgYFzjO N6xQFLAKgyzQ2/JHTDdOZR8RichKSNXfikjx5qSjzcarCWA/qV3TwoEP3MxgqB4SYtIV Yn5pr4jbgIYI9SRymzBvnnf/vRr2kL6QFxIKtMr05am8XkoodvH0cFlo8K5XzU24cnl9 jD6eoriU/btMBOUhai+aDci0mQFuQQz26b+Fe8yaLekdRLuRz3KMehVPLIcAR2DNtDXJ jcyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJksOuuFRM4hcPitGP2+f27AKdUXNyGL0sPYyzlHbq6NNdQtyoh 1jO0Gq14CDUXx/kpsZbqhumJEA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fHnGmfm21eED4YuHsYZMH6Ui6X1kyaBh3pFZ51GP38duiZ/Yr5ICVk7XPLha6OSgcXiFuqPA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:14e:: with SMTP id 75mr19057353pgb.340.1540919030620; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f2c0:101:3:34f0:f6ee:f84c:efb3? ([2607:f2c0:101:3:34f0:f6ee:f84c:efb3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o192-v6sm34075161pfo.141.2018.10.30.10.03.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <ybllg6f2x0h.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:03:47 -0400
Cc: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F8215CED-5980-41E5-93E7-8283BFA66939@hopcount.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+EuNCPLQrG7YWb1-MOhQvqXvtq5i1FsRAW+hmLBHs06-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn3RCR__ChfB9A4cckaWPfX9nb6=v1iEr9-4q0JpYhFCiw@mail.gmail.com> <ybllg6f2x0h.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/k4hTmzkVzT5urJsdqxAJlQKY03s>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:03:56 -0000

On 30 Oct 2018, at 12:57, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

>> With IANA registry requests, I may be wrong here, but I thought we had
>> some (boilerplate?) language about how IANA is asked to operate the
>> registry: what criteria judge acceptance. Is it like the OID and
>> basically open (hair oil) slather, or is it only at WG RFC documented
>> request?
> 
> If there is a better template, we'd certainly like to hear it.

RFC 8126 contains exactly the guidance you're looking for. When creating a new registry you not only need to specify the schema and the initial rows to populate the new table with (as you started in section 5.2, although the formatting of the table is a bit horrifying); you also need to specify the name of the registry, required information for future additions and the registration policy.

Happy to contribute some text if that seems useful.


Joe