On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:48:11AM -0500,
The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations '
<draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt> as a BCP
I approve the goal (the main change is to simplify the registration of
new DNS Resource Record codes, from "IETF consensus" to the new "DNS
RRTYPE Allocation Policy" in section 3.1.1 of the I-D).
I've read the document and I've found only one typo (3.1.1: "a
Meta-Type who processing is optional", I believe it should be "whose
processing").
But I find that the Expert Review process in section 3.1.1 may be
described too lightly. I base my opinion on experience with the
ietf-languages process (RFC 4646) which uses a similar expert
review. There have been some problems such as deadlocking (the expert
thought his previous comments were to be addressed, while the
requester thought he had to wait the expert) or uncertainty about
delays (does a new form, sent to address some comments, reset the
period?).
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-09 (section 3.5) specifically addresses these
points, which seem to be ignored in draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt:
* modifications made to the request during the course of the
registration process (they extend the period, but do not reset it),
* clear indication of the outcome of the process (acceptance,
rejection, extension). Some requests on ietf-languages saw the period
pass and no decision taken,
* appeals to the IESG
May be such wording should appear in draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf