At 06:27 02-12-2009, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
There is in fact a request, it's just made indirectly. That was my
complaint.
I'll second your complaint. RFC 5226 provides guidelines to authors
on what sort of text should be added to their documents in order to
provide IANA clear guidelines. Indirect requests do not provide
clear guidelines.
I'm aware that the draft claims this is an IETF/IANA responsibility
and not an ICANN one. I'm not sure I'm convinced, and I think the
IESG should take that into account when making their decision about
the draft. But I don't think it's a reason to hold it up anyway.
I'm ambivalent about having all that in this draft as it is
Informational. I would have suggested Standard Track if it wasn't
for the Private DNS Namespaces section and the style of the draft. I
suggest putting the ".local" request in a BCP for IETF Consensus and
publishing the rest of this draft as Informational. The better
approach, in my opinion, for the BCP document would be to have "IANA
has agreed ..." instead of invoking RFC 2860.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
