Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to separate 
comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments on WG 
guidelines for future documents. 

> On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:37:15AM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> I'm (of course) fine if the WG / chairs decide that DNSOP needs
>> implementations before progressing documents, but your wording makes
>> it sound like you believe this this is already the case, and not
>> simply your (strong) preference.
> I am aware DNSOP does not have a policy of requiring implementations,
> and I find this lack of policy regrettable. I believe this document is
> not ready for WGLC, for the reasons I listed.

The fact that we don’t have a rule about all documents doesn’t mean an issue 
can’t be raised about a specific document.

While it’s often disappointing to editors when the WG raises significant issues 
in WGLC, that’s kind of what WGLC is for.

We’re hearing that having an RFC will be helpful to promoting implementation, 
and also that this draft may not be ready to be advanced for publication 
because it doesn’t include implementation experience. This is something the WG 
needs to comment on further, because it seems substantive to me so it will have 
to be addressed one way or another before we advance the document— but those 
inputs are somewhat in disagreement.

Editors: Please take “concern about a description of current implementation 
status” as WGLC input, and consider what you might be able to add to the draft 
to address it. 

WG vendors/implementers: Can folks who have implemented kskroll-sentinel, or 
considered implementing it, please speak up on your concerns/plans?

Suzanne (&Tim)

DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to