Alvaro, The draft aims for PS, not IS. I think you've found an XML editing bug on our part. We wouldn't expect to go IS, given this bis includes new material. So this was a great catch.
Thanks, Allison Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 6, 2016, at 11:43, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I don’t have concerns over the technical content of this document, but I > do have want to raise a process-related DISCUSS. > > The Intended RFC Status of this document is “Internet Standard”, which > seems like a logical progression from RFC5966 (Proposed Standard). > However, I am concerned that the proper process was not followed: > > 1. RFC6410 calls for “an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks”, but > the LS started on Nov/23 and ended on Dec/7, 2 weeks. > > 2. In looking at the archives I couldn’t find any discussion about > changing the maturity level. > > 3. It also concerns me that the changes go beyond a simple revision of > the old text. For example, there are recommendations that are completely > new and for topics that were not even mentioned in the original (e.g. > pipelining). > > > I may have missed the discussions in the archive. Not being a DNS expert > I may also be overestimating the changes to this document. But knowing > that the “document was actively discussed and reviewed” and that it “had > a broad discussion as the wording of several points were more accurately > described” (from the Shepherd’s write up), I think that this document may > not be ready to be an Internet Standard. > > The obvious solution to this DISCUSS is to change the intended status to > Proposed Standard. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
