Subject: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2929bis - templates and guidelines

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:34:05 -0500

Hi,

A number of messages have bee posted concerning the RR Type Code
template and guidelines in the current 2929bis draft. While I have my
opinions, I will be happy to modify the draft to whatever the
Solomon-like judgment of our co-chairs says is the WG consensus.

As to my opinions:

I think the current template is about right. 
	Perhaps adding a question as to whether an RR re-uses or
requires the creation of any IANA registry might be added. But I do not
think we should require all the documentation of a new RR to be stuffed
into the template. Making the description available via some other
accessible public document seems fine. We want to keep down the burden
on applicants. Also, keep in mind that once someone has an RR Type Code,
if they make some change or extension in its use, it is not clear that
they have much incentive to update an IETF template but they will likely
update their own documentation. So a pointer to such documentation may
be more valuable and current than the original template.
 	Finally, to the complaint that the template requires applicants
to make judgments about their proposed RR that they may have difficulty
in doing, I would point out that the 2929bis specifically encourages the
early posting of partial or draft templates for the purpose of
soliciting comments and feedback. If some applicant doesn't feel that
they can answer one the judgmental questions, they should just post a
partial draft template and see what comments/feedback they get from
namedroppers.

While some template and its prior posting to the mailing list seem like
a great idea, my personal opinion was initially opposed to any
guidelines. I think a DNS expert, selected by the IESG, who has the
benefit of weeks of feedback on a proposal from the namedroppers list,
should be perfectly capable of making judgments without lots of detailed
rules. I detect a possessiveness among some people who want DNSEXT or
any possible future follow on WG to keep as much control as possible.
	But since feedback at previous meetings was for detailed
guidelines, I put those in. Some people now want to scale back on the
detail or provide more of a statement of principle. Well, that's fine
with me if it is what the WG wants.
	Whatever we end up with should have some wiggle room. If the
rules/guidelines/principles or whatever are too sharp, the expert and
IANA may be forced to follow them in unanticipated circumstances with
unintended consequences. As far as I know, the IETF does not have an
overriding "abuse of process" rule for IANA allocations so you need room
for the expert to refuse applications which are submitted in bad faith
or have some unanticipated defect.

Thanks,
Donald

 =========================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake III       [email-masked]
 Motorola Laboratories              +1-508-786-7554 (work)
 111 Locke Drive
 Marlboro, MA 01752 USA

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:09:36 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:

> requires the creation of any IANA registry might be added. But I do 
> not think we should require all the documentation of a new RR to be 
> stuffed into the template. Making the description available via some 
> other accessible public document seems fine. We want to keep down 
> the burden on applicants.

Requiring a separate "accessible public document", depending on the 
criteria for what's acceptable as such a document, can be a burden of 
some note.  In particular, under the current 2929 rules for the 
"specification required" portion of the space, a "permanent" reference 
is needed, which leaves internet-drafts unacceptable.  Arguments over 
what exactly is acceptable have slowed down at least one type code 
allocation.

I was hoping that moving to templates would remove that concern -- by 
making the template the permanent archive, you don't have to worry 
about any other documents.

> with me if it is what the WG wants.

Since there seems to be some disagreement within the WG, how about 
assembling an "issues list" that we can work from?

-- Sam