Subject: [dnsext] Disposition of request for assignment: ASSET (IANA #164632)

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:21:50 -0500

Dear colleagues,

After due consideration under the procedures of RFC 5395, the request for the assignment of the ASSET RRTYPE is rejected.  

Best regards,

Andrew Sullivan

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

--
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: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:28:40 -0500

Dear colleagues,

After due consideration under the terms of RFC 5395, the request for
the RRTYPE assignment NEGATIVE has been rejected.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:35:45 -0500

Andrew,

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> After due consideration under the procedures of RFC 5395, the
> request for the assignment of the ASSET RRTYPE is rejected.

> the RRTYPE assignment NEGATIVE has been rejected.

Who were the designated Experts for these reviews?

While Section 3.1.1 of RFC 5395 does not require it, I think the
Working Group would benefit from understanding the reasoning for
rejecting these two requests.  This clarification will help future
requesters to understand the criteria.

Thanks,

Matt

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:04:29 -0500

> Who were the designated Experts for these reviews?

Sorry, I likely should have covered this in my notes, but I thought
I'd mentioned it when we started those evaluations.  It's been a long
time, however, so better to repeat.  We initiated both of those while
the RFC was still 2929bis (i.e. it hadn't been finalized yet).  

The IESG appointed two experts: Roy Arends and Frederico Neves.  They
also appointed me chair of the panel of experts, which means that I'm
officially an expert too.  (You all may stop laughing now ;-)

In order to get as much experience with the procedures as possible,
and in order to check each other's work, we decided we should all
evaluate these cases, in order to see that things are working.  (We
are in fact taking the same strategy with the open reviews of requests
from Jim Reid.)  For paperwork purposes, I think this means that I'm
the designated expert, because I handled the communication with IANA.
But in fact we all reviewed them.  I anticipate in future that IANA
will pick an expert who will not be me, and I'll just be around to
ensure the smooth functioning of things.  (Depending on the volume of
requests we get, we may also go looking for additional experts for the
pool.)  
 
> requesters to understand the criteria.

In the NEGATIVE case, during the namedroppers discussion period,
someone suggested a different strategy which did not depend on the
assignment.  Stuart Cheshire asked us to put the request "on hold"
while he investigated that option, but he tells me he hasn't had time
to look at it properly.  The six weeks maximum is long since past, so
for administrative reasons we have to reject the request.  A similar
request could be made in future, however, and we would not treat this
rejection as a precedent.

In the ASSET case, there were some more serious problems.  Of special
concern is that the existing I-D that defines the RRTYPE has a
fallback mechanism to TXT.  This seemed to violate RFC 5395 section
3.1.2, rule 2.  We had some questions as well about some assumptions
in the I-D and whether the documentation was complete enough.  I
asked for some clarification some time ago, but I haven't received
anything.  Partly because I've been delinquent, this has been hanging
on, but at IANA's nudging I had to conclude that we weren't going to
hear anything back, so the request has to be rejected.

Does this clear things up?

Best,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:03:24 -0500

> Does this clear things up?

Yes, thanks!  I engaged the Not-So-Wayback Machine and found your note
about the 2929bis process (with Roy and Frederico) and the discussion
that ensued around the ASSET and NEGATIVE requests.  I'm not surprised
by these rejections given the mailing list discussion, but my question
was if there was any more to the rejections than that, and it sounds
like no.

Thanks,

Matt

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:26:53 -0800

Matt, Andrew and all,

  Good question, and seconded!

> requesters to understand the criteria.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[email-masked]
My Phone: 214-244-4827

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:33:01 -0800

Andrew and all,

  So than essentially the rejection is due to lack of a review.
That's ok, but weak.  Perhaps keeping this "On Hold" would
have been a better decision?

Regards,

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:44:34 +0000

> "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]> 
> 

My reading of Andrew's note is that the rejections are due to a lack of 
follow up *by the requestors* themselves.

Ray

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:50:44 -0800

Ray and all,

> follow up *by the requestors* themselves.

Wellm yes that too!  Still a review irrespective of the requestors
lack of follow up would seem to be in order....  In either or both
respects, rejection seems to me anyway to be premature...

Regards,

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:25:39 -0500

Hi,

> have been a better decision?

Do you mean for the case of the request for NEGATIVE, or the request
for ASSET? 

If the former, no, it was not for lack of review, but in fact due to
an explicit request on the part of the original requester, which came
out of comments posted by people who had reviewed the request.

If the latter, then it was also not for lack of review; rather, it was
due to the review uncovering that the request did not meet the
conditions for RRTYPE assignment under the expert review procedure.  

Note that there is no "on hold" status.  Because we were early in the
application of these procedures, and because RFC 5395 had not yet
actually been published, it seemed ok to me to be a little more
cautious, which translated into taking longer than the procedures
officially allow.  But the RFC is quite clear that the public comment
period is between 3 and 6 weeks, after which the expert is supposed to
render its decision fairly quickly.  If the expert does not promptly
render a decision, IANA is directed to mark the request rejected, so
the procedure defaults to "no".  My note was really just a formal
recognition of that state of affairs.

There isn't anything that prevents people from submitting a new
request that is substantially the same, while having addressed the
remarks. 

Also, please remember that the RFC 5395 procedures are supposed to
be low-barrier RRTYPE assignments for relatively uncontroversial
cases.  If you need an RRTYPE assignment that requires special care,
unusual rules, or anything of that sort, then the right thing to do is
RRTYPE assignment by standards action; this requires deeper review,
because the last call mechanism is used and consensus has to be
declared.  Expert review doesn't depend on those things; on the other
hand, it is more likely to result in rejection if there is anything
slightly unusual about the request.

Is that clearer?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Donald Eastlake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:06:56 -0500

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

I'd like to emphasize this. The procedure is supposed to clean and
simple. I didn't want a muddle of applications whose decision deadline
keeps getting pushed out due to tweaks and re-cycling or put "on
hold". It is no big deal to get rejected. Quite possibly in some cases
it will be faster to get rejected, submit a changed application, and
hopefully get approved than to keep diddling an application which is
nominally in process...

> request that is substantially the same, while having addressed the

RFC 5395 specifically points out that people can informally post their
application template early to get community feedback. If they do that
and adjust their application and submit beased on positive community
feedback, one would hope that most will be approved by an appointed
Expert. On the other hand, if people don't ask for or don't take into
account community feedback or submit anyway even if their are lots of
objections, maybe most will be rejected...

Thanks,
Donald

> slightly unusual about the request.
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
[email-masked]

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:22:22 -0800

Andrew and all

  Ok, and much clearer thank you.  Maybe the RRTYPE conditions
need review, or revision, I'll do my own review of that myself, which
I haven't done in awhile.

  Glad to now hear/read that there actually was a review under ASSET.
That wasn't clear before regarding the requester.  My understanding
was that the requester did not respond to questions regarding their
request and thus the request was rejected on that basis.  So what
was the actual reason the request was rejected after the review, do
you happen to know?

Regards,

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:21:47 -0500

Please re-read my original explanation.

Best,

Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]