--On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 20:58 +0900 Randy Bush
<randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off
>> having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or
>> having them documented.
>
> there are two solutions to this
Probably more than two if your comment indicates that you agree
that having registered RRTYPEs documented is, on balance, better
than not having them documented:
(1) We can continue along the path of Informational RFC
publication in the IETF Stream
(2) Joe could have submitted the document to the ISE and
requested Informational RFC publication in the Independent
stream.
(3) Joe could post the definitional document on a web site
somewhere that could provide a stable reference and then ask
IANA to incorporate that reference, presumably in URL form,
rather than the name of an I-D in the registry. If this is a
Canadian initiative, perhaps the Canadian government would like
to provide that location and reference but, clearly, there are
other alternatives.
Did you have something else in mind?
I think the advantage of the first over the other two is that it
promotes a level of review in the community that, a least IMO,
had improved the document and, if we need revisit how RRTYPEs
are allocated, to provide a concrete basis for that discussion.
Once an RFC is published, the broader community is unlikely to
be able to tell the difference between the first and second
although, if we think the second would be better, it suggests
another option for the longer term:
(4) Create an IANA Stream for the RFC Editor through which we
can publish documents that describe protocol parameters that are
registered through lightweight methods and assure stable
references for them, with no approval beyond that required to
accomplish the registration. If such a stream retained the
requirement to post as an I-D (and conformance to the IETF's IPR
rules), there would still be as much or more opportunity for
community pre-publication review and feedback to the author and
expert reviewers than the independent stream affords. I have no
idea whether that would be a good idea or not and it would
certainly be too long-term to affect this document, but it is
possible.
Of course, (5), we could retroactively change the registration
procedure and retroactively deprecate these types. That might
avoid the need to write the Applicability Statement I-D that I
mentioned but, if my reading of trends in the IESG is correct, I
have my doubts.
What, actually, would you propose other than continuing to
complain about the RRTYPEs themselves and what they are intended
to support (which, in case it hasn't been clear, I largely agree
with you about).
best,
john