Re: [dnsext] rfc6195bis registration template clarification

Hi,

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> wrote:
> I'm not, meta types are for DNS software consumption so adding meta types
> involves processing.

RFC 6195 and its previous versions have always allowed ignorable meta
RR types to be allocated with expert approval. The only change is to
add some check boxes to the template.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

>        Olafur
>
>
>
> On 02/05/2012 15:49, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>
>> I'm OK with the below suggested change to the appellation template.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> =============================
>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Alfred HÎnes<ah@tr-sys.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried to figure out whether the rfc1995bis-ixfr draft needs
>>> to undergo the RRtype Expert Review per RFC 6195[bis].
>>>
>>> It looks like that review only pertains to Data and Meta-RRtypes,
>>> (and the draft -- targeting Standards Track -- needs IETF review),
>>> but the registration policy table for RRtypes (entry for range
>>> 128-255) could be misunderstood to indicate otherwise.
>>>
>>> When looking at the registration template in RFC 6195[bis],
>>> I missed a structured opportunity for the applicant to indicate
>>> whether the application is for a Data RR or Meta-RR, which would
>>> be significant for IANA to select a proper numerical range in the
>>> assignment process.
>>>
>>> So I suggest to amend clause B. of the template in Appendix A of
>>> the rfc6195bis I-D as follows:
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>> |  B. Submission Type:
>>> |     [ ] New RRTYPE
>>> |     [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>> |  B. Submission Type:
>>> |     [ ] New RRTYPE
>>> |     [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
>>> |
>>> |     Kind of RRTYPE:
>>> |     [ ] Data RR
>>> |     [ ] Meta-RR
>>>
>>> As an alternative, a new numbered item might be inserted; that
>>> would cause the need to renumber the exicsting items, which perhaps
>>> is less desirable for backwards compatibility with RFC 6195.
>>> A third alternative would be using item numbers "B.1." and "B.2.".
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>  Alfred.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dnsext mailing list
>> dnsext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext