Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
>> This message starts a 2 week WGLC for RFC6195bis ending at midnight UTZ June 28'th 2012.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02
>>
>> This document addresses known flaws in the RFC6195 (see appendix A).
>>
>> Please review the document and post a note that you have reviewed the document we need a minimum of 5 reviewers.
>
> I apologize for getting to this so late, but I also note that I might be just the fifth reviewer... The document is mostly fine.
>
> However, I have one major issue with it: it's not clear what IANA is supposed to do with it. There is a *lot* of text in this document that is repetition of the RFCs, as well as some important historical notes that are not currently in RFCs or in the IANA registry. When this document is finished, is IANA supposed to change each sub-registry to include the text from the relevant section of this RFC? If not, why is that text in this "IANA Considerations" document? I can see a few ways forward here:
>
> a) Explicitly tell IANA what additional material from this document should go in each sub-registry
>
> b) Tell IANA to put at the top of the registry something like "In order to understand this registry, you need to understand the underlying RFCs and the history of the registries. In order to do that, you should read BCP XXX" with a link to this document
>
> My preference is the latter, but people might want the former to make it harder for readers of the registry to miss the relevant stuff. There might be other ideas as well.

I also favor the latter.

> Two other issues that should be clarified:
>
> - Can anyone subscribe to the [e-mail] mailing list to see the applications come in? It is *not* listed on the page at <http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html>.

I don't think anyone else can subscribe. IANA is required to monitor
that list and presumably whoever IANA wants are the subscribers.

> - At the end of 2.2, what does "as modified by [RFC4020]" mean? Is is supposed to be "as described in [RFC4020]"?

The way I always thought of it, "Standards Action" is defined in
[RFC5226]. [RFC4020] ("Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points") then modifies that definition to permit early allocation
under specific circumstances. The "as modified by [RFC4020]" is how
I've always written this. For example, it is how this is expressed in
RFC 6195 and its predecessor RFC 5395.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

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