Re: [dnsext] Re: ASSET and NEGATIVE RRTYPE requests

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

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?

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:35:45PM -0500, Matt Larson wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > > After due consideration under the terms of RFC 5395, the request for
> > > the RRTYPE assignment NEGATIVE has been rejected.
> >
> > 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.)
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
> ajs@shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

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
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827


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