Re: [dnsext] draft-lewis-dns-undocumented-types-01 -- was: Want this to be a WG doc?

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

Pleeeeze use concise, 'speaking' Subject lines that allow to
identify the document you talk about!



So this is about draft-lewis-dns-undocumented-types-01.

I support the document and already have reviewed it, but did not
send comments so far because I only had noted minor editorial nits,
and I thought the I-D was intended as a 'lingering' informational
draft for the information of the WG (cf. Datatracker WG state
"For WG Info only") and the interested DNS community -- which I
expect to roughly follow dnsext anyway. :-)

However, the I-D IMHO would make a good Individual (AD-sponsored)
submission, since the directions to IANA will be bound to rfc6195bis.
The document "simply" assembles the results of archive research
and does not need formal WG adoption and support or IETF consensus.

So, this way, the WG overhead incurred with formal draft adoption
would be avoided, and if the idea of the document is properly
described to the AD, it should not take too much time to bring it
forward as an Informational RFC.
Given the current circumstances, it might be better for the WG to
not adopt additional work that is not closely related to protocol
specification, but to help support it on the alternate path to RFC
publication.

As an alternative, we might consider including the body of the draft
as an Informative Appendix into the rfc6195bis draft; this way, IANA
would find the necessary material to retrofit the missed past actions
for the RRtype registry during the publication process for rfc6195bis.

However, if the AD refuses the individual submisison or the WG does
not like this 'combining' of I-Ds, but the WG indicates its general
support of the I-D, it could also be submitted as an Independent
Submission to the RFC-ISE; then the IESG only has to confirm lack
of collision with work in DNSEXT and elsewhere in the IETF.


BTW:
Unfortunately, there is a big grain of salt with publishing this I-D
as an RFC: Much of the substance of the draft is based on precise
URLs to semi-official documents, which RFC Editor policy will
likely to allow to be included 'as is'.  If these documents will
eventually be available as escrow copies at the IANA site, linked to
the registry entries, the need for the subject draft will melt down,
although the updated references to these copies would likely make
it better suitable for RFC publication.  :-(


Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext