On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:48:11AM -0500, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > 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-2929bis-06.txt> as a BCP I approve the goal (the main change is to simplify the registration of new DNS Resource Record codes, from "IETF consensus" to the new "DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy" in section 3.1.1 of the I-D). I've read the document and I've found only one typo (3.1.1: "a Meta-Type who processing is optional", I believe it should be "whose processing"). But I find that the Expert Review process in section 3.1.1 may be described too lightly. I base my opinion on experience with the ietf-languages process (RFC 4646) which uses a similar expert review. There have been some problems such as deadlocking (the expert thought his previous comments were to be addressed, while the requester thought he had to wait the expert) or uncertainty about delays (does a new form, sent to address some comments, reset the period?). draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-09 (section 3.5) specifically addresses these points, which seem to be ignored in draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt: * modifications made to the request during the course of the registration process (they extend the period, but do not reset it), * clear indication of the outcome of the process (acceptance, rejection, extension). Some requests on ietf-languages saw the period pass and no decision taken, * appeals to the IESG May be such wording should appear in draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf