>> This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC. It also >> contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that have >> received too little attention from the WG. Accordingly, I continue to >> oppose publication of this document[1]. I suggest that the IESG refer it >> back to the WG and, once a new document is advanced, issue a new IETF last >> call. > > Sam, > most of the changes are results of the allocation experiment that was > conducted. The working group was fully aware of them and the changes made to > the document see: > http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00190.html While it may well the be case that MOST of the changes resulted from the experiment and were called out to the WG, the change I cited (re: creating IANA registries using templates) was neither a result of the experiment (having been made before the experiment), nor called out. As for the WG being "fully aware" of the changes resulting from the experiment, I note that between the end of WGLC in November 2006 and the start of IETF last call a year later (which included the time of the experiment), the namedroppers list appears to have seen fourteen posts about 2929bis. The post-experiment discussion of these changes was minimal at best. >> And an example of one of the changes that I think has received too little >> review: >> >> The document allows templates to create IANA registries. Is that >> altogether desirable? Has the expert been given enough guidance to review >> such requests? > > This is an excellent IETF wide question it is outside the DNSEXT > WG expertize to judge this issue. > At this point there is no specific guidance to the expert(s) on > what to do in this case. I'm glad you agree that it is an excellent question. I suspect it's one of the things IANA plans to weigh in on. -- Sam _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf