Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
RFC 5395

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Cullen Jennings) Yes

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2007-12-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Are we seeing RRTYPE registration requests at a volume that would require such an elaborate variant of the vanilla 2434bis Expert Review? (I'm wondering if this is process overkill - I have no idea how many RRTYPE registrations IANA gets.)

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

Comment (2007-12-20 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I support Russ's discuss and trust him to hold it appropriately.

I also observe that if the new registration procedures are deemed more
heavyweight than the previous procedures, the likely community response
will be to "route around" the registration procedures.

I'm concerned with the use of "" as the
review mailing list.  For list-review registries the expert usually has
to manually sift through the archives to find the registration and the
person performing the registration has to subscribe temporarily.  It
may not be desirable to mix registration review with a technical
discussion list to keep the noise down.  This would be more of a concern
if list review was mandated for standards action (thankfully it isn't)
as that requires an AD or shepherd to do the sifting, often months after
the list review occurred.  Regardless, did the authors consider using
a separate list?

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection