This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC. It also
contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that have
received too little attention from the WG. Accordingly, I continue to
oppose publication of this document[1]. I suggest that the IESG refer it
back to the WG and, once a new document is advanced, issue a new IETF last
call.
Sam,
most of the changes are results of the allocation experiment that was
conducted. The working group was fully aware of them and the changes made to
the document see:
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00190.html
While it may well the be case that MOST of the changes resulted from
the experiment and were called out to the WG, the change I cited (re:
creating IANA registries using templates) was neither a result of the
experiment (having been made before the experiment), nor called out.
As for the WG being "fully aware" of the changes resulting from the
experiment, I note that between the end of WGLC in November 2006 and
the start of IETF last call a year later (which included the time of
the experiment), the namedroppers list appears to have seen fourteen
posts about 2929bis. The post-experiment discussion of these changes
was minimal at best.
And an example of one of the changes that I think has received too little
review:
The document allows templates to create IANA registries. Is that
altogether desirable? Has the expert been given enough guidance to review
such requests?
This is an excellent IETF wide question it is outside the DNSEXT
WG expertize to judge this issue.
At this point there is no specific guidance to the expert(s) on
what to do in this case.
I'm glad you agree that it is an excellent question. I suspect it's
one of the things IANA plans to weigh in on.
-- Sam
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf