Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
RFC 6195
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from dnsext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Harrington |
|
2011-03-31
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-03-31
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'BCP 42, RFC 6195' |
|
2011-03-31
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Status Date has been changed to None from 2010-12-14 |
|
2011-03-28
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2011-02-02
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Telechat review by SECDIR to Glen Zorn was rejected |
|
2011-02-02
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn |
|
2011-02-02
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn |
|
2011-01-27
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2011-01-27
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2011-01-27
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2011-01-24
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2011-01-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2011-01-21
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2011-01-21
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2011-01-21
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2011-01-21
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-01-21
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-01-21
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-01-18
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-01-16
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration … [Ballot comment] 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. Taking into consideration that this is a bis document, I am not making the following a DISCUSS: 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? |
|
2011-01-16
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-01-16
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2011-01-16
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-03.txt |
|
2011-01-14
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] |
|
2011-01-14
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Harrington has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-01-14
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] in Annex 1, field E, should the document specify that it MUST be a long-lived, stable URL if a URL is used? What … [Ballot discuss] in Annex 1, field E, should the document specify that it MUST be a long-lived, stable URL if a URL is used? What happens if the URL disappears? Should a document be required for escrow purposes? |
|
2011-01-07
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2011-01-06 |
|
2011-01-06
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2011-01-06
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration … [Ballot comment] 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. |
|
2011-01-06
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 5. IANA Considerations This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, … [Ballot discuss] 5. IANA Considerations This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details. I don't think the document is very clear on why 2 mailing lists are needed. Please add some text to clarify purpose of each mailing list. |
|
2011-01-06
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Discuss from No Objection |
|
2011-01-06
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration … [Ballot comment] 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. 5. IANA Considerations This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details. Is a request always posted to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org and then to dnsext@ietf.org? If the answer is yes, why have 2 mailing lists? |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] This is a good document and should go forward. A few comments regarding the comments and discusses from other ADs: - I do … [Ballot comment] 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). |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sam Weiler. |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] A nit: The Abstract reads... Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name … [Ballot comment] 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... |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] A small piece of IANA pedantry... Section 1.1. "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined … [Ballot discuss] A small piece of IANA pedantry... Section 1.1. "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. 5226 uses the term "Standards Action" not "IETF Standards Action". Could you fix this up throughout the document? |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I agree with David Harrington's discuss. |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
|
2011-01-04
|
03 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR Completed. Reviewer: David Black. |
|
2011-01-04
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IANA QUESTIONS: In section 3.1.1 the document says, "the formal posting to start the three week period is made by the Expert." The mailing list … IANA QUESTIONS: In section 3.1.1 the document says, "the formal posting to start the three week period is made by the Expert." The mailing list referred to here is dnsext@ietf.org. Later, in section 5, the document says, "It is the duty of the applicant to post the formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list." Can the author add some text to make the sequence of events in the application process a little clearer? The document also says, "IANA may select another Expert from the pool," but IANA does not actually choose the expert. Currently the lead expert assigns the template to someone in the pool. While IANA is subscribed to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org, the experts begin reviewing the templates without any prompting from IANA. This section needs some re-wording to reflect the current situation. If IANA's concerns need to be clarified, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval, this document updates all the IANA registration procedures for the Domain Name System. In particular, upon approval, IANA will update the IANA Protocol Matrix at: http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to reflect the [RFC-to-be] and any changes to the specific registration procedures for DNS related registries. Also, upon approval of this document, IANA will examine -- and where necessary update -- the registration procedures in the Domain Name System Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters For each of the registries contained in the DNS Parameters registry, IANA will ensure that all specifications for registration requirements are updated to reflect the guidance provided in [RFC-to-be]. IANA understands that these are all the actions required upon approval of this document. |
|
2011-01-04
|
03 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-04
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] in section 1, s/is the change is the public review mailing list /is the change to the public review mailing list/ in section … [Ballot comment] 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? |
|
2011-01-04
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] in section 2.1, should the document state that the ancient usage is hereby obsoleted and the z-bit MUST NOT be used for this … [Ballot discuss] in section 2.1, should the document state that the ancient usage is hereby obsoleted and the z-bit MUST NOT be used for this ancient purpose in implmenetations compliant to this spec? in Annex 1, field E, should the document specify that it MUST be a long-lived, stable URL if a URL is used? What happens if the URL disappears? Should a document be required for escrow purposes? |
|
2011-01-04
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-04
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-03
|
03 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
|
2010-12-31
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-12-19
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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. 5. IANA Considerations This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details. Is a request always posted to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org and then to dnsext@ietf.org? If the answer is yes, why have 2 mailing lists? |
|
2010-12-19
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-12-17
|
03 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to David Black |
|
2010-12-17
|
03 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to David Black |
|
2010-12-16
|
03 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-12-16
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
|
2010-12-16
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
|
2010-12-15
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
|
2010-12-15
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <dnsext@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt> (Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations) to BCP The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to consider the following document: - 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations' <draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt> as a BCP 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 2011-01-05. 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. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis/ |
|
2010-12-15
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Last Call text changed |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-01-06 |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | Status Date has been changed to 2010-12-14 from None |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | Last Call was requested |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | Last Call text changed |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | Last Call text changed |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-12-14
|
03 | Ralph Droms | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
|
2010-11-29
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | (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 … (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? DNSEXT co-chair Olafur Gudmundsson (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes adequate review, No concerns about the quality of the review. Note this document is a minor update from RFC5395 the changes are - working group email list has changed - minor inconsistency in two sections has been aligned. (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? NO (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. NO (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong, (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? There are 3 warnings on the document, two are wrong as they confuse regular expression part with reference, one is warning about the boilerplate template being older that recommended, the editor and chairs agreed that to keeps differences from RFC5395 to minimum we would use the same template as the RFC used. (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]. No downward references. (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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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? Checked no changes from RFC5395, IANA will need to update references from 5395 to this document. (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? yes I checked the regular expressions. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Technical Summary: The document obsoletes RFC5395 "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations" there is one major change: The mailing list for the working group has changed and the old address was embedded in the expert review for new RR types. There is also a small change that fixes inconsistency in who does what during the expert review. Working Group Summary The working group held a short limited scope LC, with restrictions on what could be changed. We accepted one change that fixed a known inconsistency in RFC5395, but rejected other suggested changes as being out of scope. We request accelerated processing by the IESG on this document. Document Quality: High quality |
|
2010-11-29
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-11-29
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Olafur Gudmundsson (ogud@ogud.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
|
2010-11-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt |
|
2010-11-11
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-01.txt |
|
2010-11-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-00.txt |