Re: Last Call: <draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt> (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 6/20/13 10:04 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> I agree with at least a little of what each of Olafur, John, and 
> Andrew have said; but I think there's a middle ground between "throw 
> the doors wide open" and "everything we have tried before didn't 
> work." At least I hope there is.
>
Well recall that we still have DNSOP, which along with the dnsext 
mailing list once the wg is closed is probably a reasonable place to 
get/look for feedback.
> Perhaps we could have a non-WG mailing list so that people could 
> submit proposals for review prior to the expert review process. Even 
> some of the "get off my lawn" crowd offered good suggestions for this 
> EUI case (make 1 record with a size field rather than 2 records) that 
> could have made this whole process a lot smoother.
My impression of the outcome of the procedure change for the registry is 
the wg didn't feel that there should be any particular obstacle  beyond 
expert review for registration. It is possible that reasonable people 
should disagree on the application of given rr-types and that they 
should be registered anyway.

In 30 years we've allocated ~120 rrtypes most of which we don't use   
anymore.
>
> Doug
>