Subject: [dnsext] rfc6195bis registration template clarification

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:37:43 +0200 (MESZ)

I tried to figure out whether the rfc1995bis-ixfr draft needs
to undergo the RRtype Expert Review per RFC 6195[bis].

It looks like that review only pertains to Data and Meta-RRtypes,
(and the draft -- targeting Standards Track -- needs IETF review),
but the registration policy table for RRtypes (entry for range
128-255) could be misunderstood to indicate otherwise.

When looking at the registration template in RFC 6195[bis],
I missed a structured opportunity for the applicant to indicate
whether the application is for a Data RR or Meta-RR, which would
be significant for IANA to select a proper numerical range in the
assignment process.

So I suggest to amend clause B. of the template in Appendix A of
the rfc6195bis I-D as follows:

OLD:

|  B. Submission Type:
|     [ ] New RRTYPE
|     [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE

NEW:

|  B. Submission Type:
|     [ ] New RRTYPE
|     [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
|
|     Kind of RRTYPE:
|     [ ] Data RR
|     [ ] Meta-RR

As an alternative, a new numbered item might be inserted; that
would cause the need to renumber the exicsting items, which perhaps
is less desirable for backwards compatibility with RFC 6195.
A third alternative would be using item numbers "B.1." and "B.2.".

Best regards,
 Alfred.