Re: [Last-Call] [Ext] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
>
> That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed
> its mind on what the status of this protocol should be. RFC 5933 describes
> a national standard that is thinly deployed. At the time, it was necessary
> to have the protocol on standards track; now it no longer is required.
>

One or two people had also poked me off-list, asking if the process allows
for an informational document to update a non-informational document. This
appears to be fully allowed by process (and I had checked before advancing
the document).
I checked on a few documents which Update other documents, and here is a
selection of prior instances where this was done.

RFC2026 - "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3" (BCP) was updated
by both
RFC7841 - "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates" (Informational)
and RFC3669 - "Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property
Issues" (Informational)


RFC9120 - "Nameservers for the Address and Routing Parameter Area ("arpa")
Domain" (Info) updates RFC3172 - "Management Guidelines \& Operational
Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain
("arpa") (Best Current Practice)


RFC7722 - "Multi-Topology Extension for the Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)" (Exp) updates both RFC7188 - "Optimized Link
State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood Discovery
Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs" (Standards Track)
and RFC7631 - "TLV Naming in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Generalized
Packet/Message Format" (Standards Track)


RFC7419 - "Common Interval Support in Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection" (Informational) updates  RFC5880 - "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD)" (Standards Track).

W


> 2. What is requested from IANA. ths text you wrote and I copied is not a
> directive to IANA that is clear
>
> You are correct that the IANA Considerations section is quite unclear, and
> needs to be clarified before the IESG considers it.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>