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

["Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 05:33:01PM -0800, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
> > 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?
>
> ...
>
> 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.

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...

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

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

> 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
> ajs@shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3@gmail.com

--
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/>