RE: Architectural question for the IAB

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

In principle OK by me. We need to fill out a date by
which we expect (would like) to have a response.
Maybe we can also be a bit more explicit w.r.t. our 
recently agreed procedure for this. Aka:

1. Architectural question to IAB

   Document draft-klensin-name-filters-03.txt has been sent
   to the RFC editor for publication and referred to the IESG
   for review as an Informational RFC.  The draft raises an
   issue related to protocol processing which seems fairly
   important, which can be summarized as:

      "What issues should be considered when deciding when
       and how to apply validity checks for protocol
       processing not conducted by the application applying
       the validity check?"

   To steal a concrete example, what might be the issues in an 
   application pre-checking the syntactical validity of a DNS
   name prior to passing it to the DNS?

2. Type of response expected

   The IESG expects two things in response:

   - a review of the Klensin draft and

   - a short document describing the issues.

   Note that this is not asking IAB to re-write the Klensin
   draft, which explicitly does not take on this task:
 
    "this document takes no position on whether or not the
     testing is desirable.  It only identifies the correct
     tests to be made if tests are to be applied."

3. Response expected by:  <date> 

4. Specific IAB people the IESG considers to have the best 
   background are: non identified


Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hardie@qualcomm.com [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 19 september 2003 20:42
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Architectural question for the IAB
> 
> 
> In line with our new procedures, I'd like to ask the IESG for
> consensus on asking the IAB an architectural question related
> to draft-klensin-name-filters-03.txt, which has been sent
> to the RFC editor for publication and referred to us for
> review as an Informational RFC.  The draft raises an issue
> related to protocol processing which seems to me fairly important,
> which I would summarize as:  "What issues should be considered
> when deciding when and how to apply validity checks for protocol
> processing not conducted by the application applying the validity
> check?"
> 
> To steal a concrete example, what might be the issues in an 
> application
> pre-checking the syntactical validity of a DNS name prior to 
> passing it to
> the DNS?
> 
> If I understand the next steps correctly, once the IESG has 
> come to consensus
> on the question, Harald would send the question to the IAB, 
> along with a
> description of what we expect in response.  I would expect 
> two things in
> response:  a review of the Klensin draft and a short document 
> describing
> the issues.  Note that this is not asking them to re-write 
> the Klensin draft,
> which explicitly does not take on this task:
> 
>    "this document takes no position on whether or
>     not the testing is desirable.  It only identifies the 
> correct tests
>     to be made if tests are to be applied."
> 
> 				regards,
> 					Ted Hardie
> 
>