Re: Tricky cross-area topics

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:28 AM Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 2019, at 3:29 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Working group chairs --
> >
> > In an attempt to reduce the number of "late surprises" with documents found during IESG review -- that is, showstopping issues with uses of technology that can sometimes require non-trivial reworking of protocol mechanisms -- the IESG has gathered together a list of topics that frequently trip up document authors and occasionally entire working groups.
> >
> > The hope is that Working Group Chairs can keep an eye on these topics as new work starts up in their working groups, so that appropriate experts can be looped in early in the process, thereby avoiding late surprises during IETF last call and IESG evaluation.
>
> I like this idea a lot, thanks IESG.
>
> >
> > The high-level list lives at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics>. The intent is that this should be fairly easy to scan to see whether a document under consideration for adoption touches on any of the related technologies. Each area also has its own slightly more detailed page, linked from this list, that goes into the technology areas in a bit more depth; but the intention here is that anyone using a listed technology should reach out to a directorate, expert, or area director in the related area for guidance.
>
> Please add "special use names" to the bullet on DNS. The classic case is the year-long nightmare around “.home” in RFC 7788.

Yup -- that's actually mentioned in the "For a more complete
discussion of these topics, please see
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/WikiStart" link, but the summary
was overly terse - I just expanded it with "special use names".

Thanks!
W

>
> I wrote a draft (and then have lately failed to update it from comments, but will before Singapore) suggesting some guidelines for IETF WGs to use in picking special use names, or finding alternatives, if it appears that a protocol “needs” a hard-coded domain name. There are some dragons, particularly if people want “a TLD” for their protocol.
>
>
> Suzanne
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf