Subject: [perpass] draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:48:26 -0800

Hello,

I took at quick look at 
draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.  The intended status is 
"IESG Approval".  I read the usual IETF documentation.  I could not 
find any mention of an IESG Approval document specification.

The draft focuses on domain names.  It is going to be problematic to 
pass such a proposal through.  RFC 6761 was controversial.  I suggest 
contacting an Area Director for guidance about the draft.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Christian Grothoff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:54:26 +0100

On 11/14/2013 01:48 PM, SM wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I took at quick look at draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00. 
> The intended status is "IESG Approval".  I read the usual IETF
> documentation.  I could not find any mention of an IESG Approval
> document specification.
>
That's right, but this is what is mentioned in RFC 6761 (Section 4,
Procedure).

> contacting an Area Director for guidance about the draft.
Well, RFC 6761 being controversial hopefully doesn't mean that one
cannot _use_ it.

"An" Area Director is a big generic, do you have somebody in mind?

Happy hacking!

Christian

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:24:32 -0800

Hi Christian,
>"An" Area Director is a big generic, do you have somebody in mind?

I'll suggest Brian Haberman ([email-masked]) or Ted Lemon 
([email-masked]).

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:58:44 +0100

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:48:26AM -0800,
 SM <[email-masked]> wrote 

> documentation.  I could not find any mention of an IESG Approval

RFC 5226      

IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG.
            Although there is no requirement that the request be
            documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
            documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
            basis.

            IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a
            "common case"; indeed, it has seldom been used in practice
            during the period RFC 2434 was in effect.  Rather, it is
            intended to be available in conjunction with other policies
            as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other
            allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a timely
            fashion or for some other compelling reason.  IESG Approval
            is not intended to circumvent the public review processes
            implied by other policies that could have been employed for
            a particular assignment.  IESG Approval would be
            appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is desired
            and there is strong consensus for making the assignment
            (e.g., WG consensus).

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:02:39 +0100

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 01:54:26PM +0100,
 Christian Grothoff <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Well, RFC 6761 being controversial hopefully doesn't mean that one

As far as I know, draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names is the
first attempt to actually use RFC 6761 and exercice its
procedures. But Apple already registered .local in the special
registry
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml>

For the record, I've reviewed
draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00, I find it well-written
and clear and I fully support it. Registering these names would be a
very good idea.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:47:29 -0500

IESG Approval isn't a document status, it's a policy definition for
namespace value assignment.

It looks to me like RFC 6761 could have been better phrased. It describes
the registry and says that to add to it, an RFC must be published that
specifies new entries and the entries must be categorized either IESG
Approval or Standards Action... for how they are approved as registry
entries. It does not (mean to) say that the RFC itself should have status
of IESG Approval.

Scott

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:58:41 -0800

Hi Stephane,
>             documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case

That text is about assignments within the purview of the IETF.  It is 
better to avoid turf wars unless there is a good reason.  Saving the 
Internet is usually not considered as a good reason. :-)

Regards,
-sm