Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
RFC 6195

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2011-01-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
This is a good document and should go forward.

A few comments regarding the comments and discusses from other ADs:

- I do not believe this document is the place to obsolete z-bit. This is
  an IANA considerations doc.

- Regarding URLs and the template, I note that Specification Required
  is not explictly called for. Maybe it should be, and that would solve
  the URL problem (as the semantics of Specification Required have
  been defined elsewhere and reference stability is one criteria).

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2011-01-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I agree with David Harrington's discuss.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-01-05)
No email
send info
A nit:

The Abstract reads...

   Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
   considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System
   (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes,
   DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes.

Pedantically, this Abstract says nothing about *this* document.
Could you make it read...

   This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
   parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of...

(David Harrington) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-01-04)
No email
send info
in section 1, s/is the change is the public review mailing list /is the change to the public review mailing list/

in section 2.3, might it be good to recommend NOT overloading the values, ala the 16 bit, since we have 60000+ bits available?

section 3.1.4 uses MX RR without prior definition, or reference to the definition.

in Annex 1, field E, why does this end in a colon?

why is field J on a totally separate page?

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2011-01-06)
No email
send info
I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration policy here.


I have a couple of comments. Taking into consideration that this is a bis document, I am making them Comment-level:

1)
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

   No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
   template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
   Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
   application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
   by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the
   application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to
   IANA.

The last sentence: is "rejection by silence" a good idea? Has this worked well in the past?

2) Excuse my ignorance, but what is the relationship between 2 mailing lists:

3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

   No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
   template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
   Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
   application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
   by the applicant.

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection