Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt

On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Samuel Weiler wrote:

> As I said at the microphone in Paris, I would strongly prefer to see typecode templates posted publicly in all cases.  I see no need to shorten the review period beyond the current three weeks.
> 
> Furthermore, as I pointed out on this list on 7 October, IANA seems to not be maintaining the archive of templates as requested in both RFC5395 and RFC6195.  If we're are going to keep using this template system to allocate typecodes, we need that archive.  Absent a commitment from IANA to maintain that archive, preferably backed up with evidence that they have populated that archive with the old templates, I would prefer to see us back out the RFC5395 changes to the typecode allocation process and revert to the RFC2929 rules.

This is an issue for the IAB, who is in charge of the IETF's relationship with IANA. If IANA is not meeting a requirement of an RFC, they should be told to do so a bit more forcefully. We should not have to revert to a less descriptive registry.

--Paul Hoffman

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