Subject: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 08:43:23 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t have concerns over the technical content of this document, but I
do have want to raise a process-related DISCUSS.

The Intended RFC Status of this document is “Internet Standard”, which
seems like a logical progression from RFC5966 (Proposed Standard). 
However, I am concerned that the proper process was not followed:

1. RFC6410 calls for “an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks”, but
the LS started on Nov/23 and ended on Dec/7, 2 weeks.

2. In looking at the archives I couldn’t find any discussion about
changing the maturity level.

3. It also concerns me that the changes go beyond a simple revision of
the old text.  For example, there are recommendations that are completely
new and for topics that were not even mentioned in the original (e.g.
pipelining).

I may have missed the discussions in the archive.  Not being a DNS expert
I may also be overestimating the changes to this document. But knowing
that the “document was actively discussed and reviewed” and that it “had
a broad discussion as the wording of several points were more accurately
described” (from the Shepherd’s write up), I think that this document may
not be ready to be an Internet Standard.

The obvious solution to this DISCUSS is to change the intended status to
Proposed Standard.

---

From: "Mankin, Allison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:55:13 +0000

Alvaro,

The draft aims for PS, not IS. I think you've found an XML editing bug on our part. We wouldn't expect to go IS, given this bis includes new material. So this was a great catch.

Thanks,
Allison

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 11:43, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 07:39:00 -0800

It is intended as ps, given the changes I think advancement to IS is
not warrented notwithstanding wide deployment.

The duration of the last call looks to be my bad and I will have to
correct that.

joel

On 1/6/16 8:55 AM, Mankin, Allison wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:19:44 +0000

On 1/6/16, 11:55 AM, "Mankin, Allison" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Allison:

Hi!

>I think you've found an XML editing bug on our part.

No, actually the problem is not in the document, but in how the "Intended
RFC Status" was set on the datatracker page:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/

Alvaro.

---

From: "Mankin, Allison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:26:26 +0000

Alvaro,

Thanks for the update!  I did quickly learn my error on this.  It shows
how we skim familiar things like Last Calls - I had expected it was PS and
I didn¹t see the IS designation there at all.

I wasn¹t able to be on the Webex for the telechat today.

What happens now?   A two week PS Last Call?  (a question for JoelŠ)

Onward and upward,

Allison

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:30:30 -0500

Hi Allison,

> What happens now?   A two week PS Last Call?  (a question for JoelŠ)

As an AD (at least for the next 3 months), I don't think we need a new
LC. Rather, we can fix the meta data, announce the fix to the community,
and continue processing the document.

Brian

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:35:57 +0000

>and continue processing the document.

I agree.

Alvaro.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:25:10 -0800

On 1/7/16 11:35 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>> As an AD (at least for the next 3 months), I don't think we need
>> a new LC. Rather, we can fix the meta data, announce the fix to
>> the community, and continue processing the document.
> 
> I agree.

wfm

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:21:41 -0500

Alvaro,

This is my mistake hitting the wrong value in the data tracker. I've 
adjusted it.

tim

---

From: "Mankin, Allison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:30:04 +0000

Alvaro,

I see that your Discuss is still in place. Could you remove it now since I think we have no further action on this? (Based on the discussion from last week).

Thank you and Joel and Brian.

Allison

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 15:25, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
>>>> What happens now?   A two week PS Last Call?  (a question for
>>>> Joelďż˝)
>>> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAlaOyaUACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrL6iACfftg51N0Kf6MlwY+rf/zFdzGO
> pT4AniGoN/7mNtLZL7r4irEEDK6ZjL9I
> =AMx6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:44:54 +0000

On 1/13/16, 8:30 AM, "Mankin, Allison" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I see that your Discuss is still in place. Could you remove it now

Cleared.

Alvaro.