I think that this I-D needs more work. It is too lax.
It asks that the original assignee and contact be preserved as a Note; I
disagree - I think that they should be in columns entitled Original
Assignee or some such and that the IANA registry be updated with a
reference to this I-D as an RFC so as to see what happened.
It calls for action if the e-mail address is not valid. What does this
mean? It needs to be more specific, such as there is no MTA for the
domain, or the MTA says that there is no such local part.
This shades into the third call for action, 'do not show success within
4 weeks'. What is success? You need to specify actions for e-mail valid
but no reply, e-mail valid but a non-response (e.g. I am currently out
of the office) as opposed to 'yes, I am fine with what you propose' and
'No I do not consent'. Others may think of other actions that need
different actions.
Then there is the question of what the enquiring e-mail should contain.
At the very least, it should reference this RFC to be so that the
recipient, who may have had no contact with the IETF for years, knows
what is being asked and should summarise what has been requested and why
so that those who do not want all the detail of the RFC to be can
understand what is being asked of them and why.
Where there is no reply, or a refusal, then I think that an IETF list
should be notified so that the collective wisdom of the IETF can be invoked.
Comparable exercises have been done in the past and they needed careful
attention to details such as this.
I also see a number of unusual spelligns but they can weight.
Tom Petch
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
