Re: [dnsext] rfc6195bis registration template clarification

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