Subject: [dnsext] RFC2671bis issue that requires more discussion

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:03:22 -0500

Dear Colleagues,

During IETF last call the closing of the extended labels registry was 
called in question as premature.
The discussion in question starts with this message:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75147.html

Thus the question to the working group is:
Is the action recommenced in RFC2671bis to close the extended labels 
registry and obsolete the assignments in there (bit labels and expansion 
to larger label type identifier),

     a) based on solid experience
     b) justified and supported by the working group

or should the document be revised?

     Olafur & Andrew

ps: See: 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xml#dns-parameters-10

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:23:19 -0500

There has been no discussion on this topic and I have not received any
private messages about this topic.
If I do not hear anything by January 5'th 2013 the chairs and AD will be 
free to do what ever they think is appropriate including keeping the
registry open.

	Olafur

On 13/12/2012 17:03, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>

---

From: Joao Damas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:47:20 +0100

I have text ready to go. I am going to post it tomorrow to the list (it's a special date in Spain and some other Spanish speaking countries)
The added text is meant to address John Klensin's comments on the label-registry by not closing the registry through this document but trying to explain how hard that route can be for deployment of new features. This is in the hope that future developers can weight pros and cons of that route based on field experience, derived from binary labels.

Joao

On 27 Dec 2012, at 16:23, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If I do not hear anything by January 5'th 2013 the chairs and AD will be free to do what ever they think is appropriate including keeping the
> registry open.
> 
> 	Olafur
> 
> 
>

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:19:08 +0000

IMHO draft RFC2671bis should not be revised.

The text requesting closure of the registry has been present since
draft 2 (July 2009).

WG participants had ample opportunity to post objections to this
proposal before the draft was submitted to IESG for approval, but
declined to do so.  The silent majority are either content for the
registry to be closed, or hold no opinion strongly enough to warrant
breaking the silence.

Further contributions should now be confined to addressing the
specific comments raised during the IESG review process, and
participants need to make some genuine effort to stay on-topic long
enough to get this ID published.  Attempts to change the text beyond
the minimum required to satisfy IESG should be stoutly rejected,
otherwise we will be headed for another five years of pointless
bickering!

Dick
--

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 03:26:11 -0800

>otherwise we will be headed for another five years of pointless

The issue was actually raised during the Last Call.  The approach 
mentioned by Joao might address the issue [1].  It's easier to leave 
the registry open instead of using "no WG discussion" as an argument 
to close the registry.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12856.html

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:59:14 +0000

On 28 December 2012 11:26, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> The issue was actually raised during the Last Call.
I stand corrected.
However, the draft was passed to IESG with the request to close the
registry still in it.  Unless IESG is minded to raise a specific
objection, the argument is over.

> ...  It's easier to leave the registry open
> instead of using "no WG discussion" as an argument to close the registry.
The argument is "WG content to leave text as it is".
A WG full of Trappist monks can be in rough consensus.

An awful lot of paper engineering effort is being expended to justify
keeping open a registry which serves no purpose other than to divide
code space between its non-users.  Failure to take the opportunity to
unload this excess baggage will leave an unnecessary obstacle in the
path of future developments which may propose to reuse the space in
ways better suited to their own purpose.

Dick
--