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

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>]

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?

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
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/>