Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with DISCUSS)

["Mankin, Allison" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro,

The draft aims for PS, not IS. I think you've found an XML editing bug on our part. We wouldn't expect to go IS, given this bis includes new material. So this was a great catch.

Thanks,
Allison

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 11:43, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I don’t have concerns over the technical content of this document, but I
> do have want to raise a process-related DISCUSS.
> 
> The Intended RFC Status of this document is “Internet Standard”, which
> seems like a logical progression from RFC5966 (Proposed Standard). 
> However, I am concerned that the proper process was not followed:
> 
> 1. RFC6410 calls for “an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks”, but
> the LS started on Nov/23 and ended on Dec/7, 2 weeks.
> 
> 2. In looking at the archives I couldn’t find any discussion about
> changing the maturity level.
> 
> 3. It also concerns me that the changes go beyond a simple revision of
> the old text.  For example, there are recommendations that are completely
> new and for topics that were not even mentioned in the original (e.g.
> pipelining).
> 
> 
> I may have missed the discussions in the archive.  Not being a DNS expert
> I may also be overestimating the changes to this document. But knowing
> that the “document was actively discussed and reviewed” and that it “had
> a broad discussion as the wording of several points were more accurately
> described” (from the Shepherd’s write up), I think that this document may
> not be ready to be an Internet Standard.
> 
> The obvious solution to this DISCUSS is to change the intended status to
> Proposed Standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>