Re: [dnsext] [dane] TLSA == RRtype 52

A small process nit

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:55:53PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> We applied in good faith, assuming that our application was for the protocol, not a single draft. If the DNSEXT WG chairs felt that we should wait until the draft could not have any wire changes, the DNSEXT WG chairs should have told us that at the time of the application.
> 

The management of RRTYPE allocation is not up to the DNSEXT chairs,
perhaps surprisingly.  The expert review and assignment rules happen
to use an expert panel that involves one of us (me) for administrative
convenience, and happen to use this mailing list for discussion.  But
as a formal matter, the WG's opinion about a draft is not taken into
consideration, and there is no formal process link to the WG.  We
picked the dnsext WG's list in the past on the general principle that
the WG's list is likely the place where people interested in these
things can be found.  Indeed, had we not completely lost access to
moderation and so on, we might well have left the list name as
namedroppers@ops.ietf.org.

Again, I think this is all a formal matter.  Naturally, if a large
number of people on this list expressed reservations about an
allocation, the expert would no doubt take that into consideration.
(For similar reasons, I do not actually believe that there will be any
change in the wire format of the RRTYPE when it goes through the
IESG.  As a practical matter, the wire format is almost certainly
stable.  As a formal matter, though, we cannot assume that.)

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext