Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:

>>>   RRTYPE assignments need to say something about the rdata format
>>>   no longer being subject to change.  Its not for reserving a code
>>>   point as it will be coded into implementations.
> 
> DANE thought that they had a code point that they could change the
> internal structure about at will by going through the allocation
> process.  They needed to be disavowed of this notion.  This should
> not happen again.

Mark's sneering is one way to look at it. Another is that, with an RRtype in a mature draft that labelled as TBD, implementers will just pick one and then eventually squat on it, screwing up both the registry and implementations.

Standards-track protocols can be changed all the way through IESG review. Those changes could in fact change the internal structure of the data covered in an RRtype. This leaves exactly two choices:

- Force Internet-Drafts to keep their RRtype as TBD all the way until the IESG passes the Internet-Draft to the RFC Editor

- Allow WGs and document authors to request RRtype assignment earlier in the process and know that there might be a change based on technical review of the document

Pick one.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext