RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs - Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record Types to Proposed Standard

["Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>]

> 
> 	Please return the full line with your position.
> 
>                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  

> Jon Peterson        [   ]     [   ]       [ x ]      [   ] 

Does this document place too great a burden on the IANA? The IANA
Considerations require IANA to enforce the policy described in the
second-to-last paragraph of Section 4, I gather, which entails pretty deep
knowledge of the mechanics of a new RR - significantly more than just
verifying whether or not the RR name has been taken, or what have you. The
policy for name compression in RDATA definitely makes sense, but I suspect
IANA isn't the right body to analyze new RR proposals and enforce that
policy. Perhaps it would be better if the IESG, or an Expert Reviewer, or
something along those lines were identified as the enforcer of the name
compression policy.

- J

> 
> 
>  2/3 (9) Yes or No-Objection opinions needed to pass. 
>  
>  * Indicate reason if 'Discuss'.
>  
> ^L
> To: IETF-Announce:;
> Dcc: *******
> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>,
>  Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> Subject: Protocol Action: Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record 
>          Types to Proposed Standard
> -------------
> 
> 
> The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Handling of Unknown 
> DNS Resource Record Types' <draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt> 
> as a Proposed Standard. This document is the product of the DNS 
> Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Thomas 
> Narten and Erik Nordmark. 
>    
> Technical Summary
>   
> Extending the Domain Name System with new Resource Record (RR) 
> types currently requires changes to name server software. This 
> document specifies the changes necessary to allow future DNS 
> implementations to handle new RR types transparently.
>    
> Working Group Summary
>    
> There was WG consensus to advance the document.
>    
> Protocol Quality
>    
> The specification has been reviewed for the IESG by Erik 
> Nordmark.
>