Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Be ye not afraid by this discuss; it's simply a request to have a discussion - https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ I had initially started writing this as NoObjection ballot, but while doing so I realized that I was sufficiently concerned that a discuss DISCUSS seemed appropriate. I am uncomfortable about the creation of the "IESG Ratification" type and process; it feels like lots of additional complexity and over-specification, and like it is leading the IETF towards much more of a "process driven" (vs "Do the Right Thing") type organization. Section 1 says: "[RFC8126] is incorporated herein except where there are contrary provisions in this document. In this document, "IESG Ratification" is used in some cases. "IESG Ratification" is specified in Section 5.1. It is NOT the same as "IESG Approval" in [RFC8126].", and Section 5.1 has a long section on "If the assignment is based on IESG Ratification:". I'm unclear why there are not just 2 assignment ranges / types -- 1: Expert Review and 2: IESG Approval. The "based on IESG Ratification" section sounds very similar to the regular "IESG Approval". [RFC5771 - "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments"](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5771/) does something quite similar to this document, but uses the existing RFC8126 process. It seems like asking the IANA to first pass requests through the Experts, and, if the range is one of the "large" ones, it gets IESG approval after that -- this is almost exactly the same thing as this document describes, but without creating a new name/type of process. I'm more than happy to be schooled as to why I'm wrong.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you very much for writing this document; it seems useful and important, and is well written to boot! Much thanks to Patrick Mevzek for the DNS-Dir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-10-dnsdir-lc-mevzek-2023-10-10/), and for following up when the new version was posted. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
