IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 19 October 2022 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C866C14CE34; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m4NpAAY-tswS; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69A1C14CE29; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 29JEM6KP014143 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:22:06 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.12; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:22:05 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.012; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:22:05 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Ron Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
CC: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10
Thread-Index: AQHY48YqR63f8z3m3kCnAOFSlpVO6Q==
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:22:05 +0000
Message-ID: <BD832679-C3E6-4EB8-82B6-84D83A47B53D@icann.org>
References: <166566129313.28471.9552612703046827117@ietfa.amsl.com> <147c2505-8b8e-e956-badf-ec633b030547@tcinet.ru> <CAHy0fzBcN9Vd9GRFB157W_23akhpy22yZa=9bV2_91hVdicYPA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHy0fzBcN9Vd9GRFB157W_23akhpy22yZa=9bV2_91hVdicYPA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33B7D1B5-9225-4232-834D-159B8C444C84"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-19_08,2022-10-19_03,2022-06-22_01
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/pnmmSdXPltFOBVHXTlSR7o29TsA>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Ext] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:22:09 -0000

On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> 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.

> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email