Moving A6 to Historic Status
draft-jiang-a6-to-historic-00

[Ballot discuss]
Should the DNS record type 38 be deprecated (and marked so in the
registry?

---

I have updated my Discuss to remove the issue that was for IESG discussion and has been discussed.

[Ballot discuss]
As far as I can tell the purpose of this document is to obsolete RFC2874. However this is not called out in either the meta-data or the Abstract.

[Ballot discuss]
Should the DNS record type 38 be deprecated (and marked so in the
registry?

---

This part of my Discuss is only for debate by the IESG and I will
clear it on or before the Telechat. The authors do not need to
take any action for this part of the Discuss.

It is a source of confusion to me that when I look at RFC 2874 in
the repository, all of the lovely metadata says "Experimental" but
the RFC itself says "Standards Track". Now, I know that the RFC                     
Editor does not like tmake *any* change to the published RFC, but
this has got be a source of confusion and, as this RFC moves to
Historic, the confusion won't get any less

Upon approval of this document, IANA will change the annotation of the
A6 RR type from "Experimental" to "Obsolete" in the DNS Parameters
registry found at www.iana.org/assignments/dns-
parameters.

We understand this to be the only IANA action for this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Moving A6 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Moving A6 to Historic Status'
  as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-01-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document provides a summary of issues and discusses the current
  usage status of A6 DNS records and moves the A6 specifications to
  Historic status, providing clarity to implementers and operators.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-a6-to-historic/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-a6-to-historic/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Ralph Droms


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

Has been discussed on 6MAN and DNSEXT lists with positive comments from
both (but one or two comments that it is make-work).

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
      internationalization or XML?

Exposure to 6MAN and DNSEXT seems sufficient.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
      she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
      concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
      the interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

N/A

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

Not a high profile issue, but no technical dissent.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
      enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
      formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
      type and URI type reviews?

One idnits warning about an intentional obsolete informative reference.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative? Are there normative references to documents that are
      not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
      If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
      completion? Are there normative references that are downward
      references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
      for them [RFC3967].

OK

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
      the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
      IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

OK

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
      automated checker?

N/A

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary

This document provides a summary of issues and discusses the current
usage status of A6 DNS records and moves the A6 specifications to
Historic status, providing clarity to implementers and operators. 

  Working Group Summary

No major issues raised. Document was discussed on the DNSEXT list, but the
chairs considered that the WG already had too many other unfinished items.

  Document Quality   

        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
        the specification?

The whole point is that the feature is not deployed and is not considered useful.
The document itself is clear.

(end)