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

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>]

Please re-read my original explanation.

Best,

Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com

On 19-Dec-08, at 1:22, "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>  
wrote:

> 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?
>
> Andrew Sullivan 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?
> >
> > 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/>
>
> 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/>

--
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/>