[DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We had initially scheduled the WGLC on this document to be over by now. However, the flurry of activity around the review we were asked to do on the homenet-dot draft, and the general traffic level on the list during IETF 98, suggested to the chairs that we should extend the WGLC.

We’re hereby formally extending it to next Wednesday, April 12.

As always for WGLC— we need to hear both support and opposition for taking this draft to the next step in the process.

thanks,
Suzanne  & TIm


> On Apr 1, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400,
> Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]> wrote 
> a message of 92 lines which said:
> 
>> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
>> 
>> "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain"
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/>
> 
> I've read -08 and I believe I understand this draft. I'm not convinced
> it's useful (most users of alternative resolution systems won't use it
> and, anyway, I'm not even sure it will be added in the Special-Use
> registry, which was wrongly frozen by the IESG) but I don't see big
> issues with the draft, it seems to me it correctly describes the new
> TLD.
> 
> Editorial :
> 
> Section 1:
> 
> "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"?
> 
> Section 5 :
> 
> After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference to
> RFC 7626?
> 
> Normative references:
> 
> Why is RFC 6303 a normative reference? It is no longer used.
> 
> Why is RFC 7686 a normative reference? It is just an example.
>