IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 03 April 2012 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B478121F8773; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1333422660; bh=WfLhNG0cXy7uCbbTWmrd0/0pUnfPZvPX0nTjRurg9TA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=niDJbl+wdwQZthSQgNbsZlYC1HfmJVEZMvUMtG7EpzvGKoSFRh6X3bU9g4axFjkqP kwcITlnIufmoxzcKpRQ+YV9GY0Uf+LZfYPoam13FIYRLq6rvOOwlEY9uiVqFtkERmV H/pnLJJcZxP081yIZUXIDlONwHiTUVnIRBc4EIfI=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90B121F8773 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OkyT01Hh+59C for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EA221F8772 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com with SMTP id j5so4642318lag.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ij30M1giVERlf8uBa8tCt0WqCUuVYT4XwpjLLU6MZqk=; b=TCTixDBXavjsf07Uo2N1O77VsbWUYhPc72pLZbmxXwIu8gw69xgylW2FHCMaTBSWAd Pug2YfAOyHvSJVUU3cOWuDAdPimZM65ZiOAYTNJIbSJVkydED+6MnExE09Qpvz7PMj2D Y8Mf6C1rmzFBNBAazJb1o4xK/cu6tHiLbvPSW2Z0vwtd9ie7IMcYkX5VKoQG0cbhVdhB xOWBWHAqtuQDH6h8cCvlr3MygSbtW8mhcFRIgrCbOgZkp+rLIHVQt0ic6mlF/Ow2EuYv oGUllhUNln258Q8yD9+oRmfUk8TZZ5nLqJ3AG6mNeTPhktaMAW7z7/xsA+9W7NOJNFaa 5eIA==
Received: by 10.152.111.198 with SMTP id ik6mr4322797lab.38.1333422658780; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.21.162 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1203272004400.25094@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20120327084731.30282.35216.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1203272004400.25094@fledge.watson.org>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:10:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEG2vUkfEvR6JkUnAfH39Ee4XaXesDN0pCHoo1Vm58uo3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DNSEXT WG <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

I'll change the draft the way the working group wants and I don't plan
to post much here. But, to repeat some of what I said at the Paris
meeting for the benefit of those not there: I don't think there is any
reason everyone needs see every application or any reason for a three
week minimum for the Expert to respond. While posting the application
by the applicant or expert should be encouraged, as the current draft
does, having a relatively quick response is more important IF people
want to eliminate the widespread impression that RRTYPE allocation is
a lengthy, difficult process. If the timeline and process remain
fairly close the current timeline and process, people should expect
that prospective applicants will continue to use TXT and/or grab a
random RRTYPE number outside the process and use it.

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> 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.
>
> -- Sam
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email