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

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Petr Špaček <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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!

The updated text will appear in the next published rev of the doc.  Thanks for your review and quick feedback...

- Ralph

> 
> 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, [e-mail] 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