Hello Suzanne,

On 6 Apr 2018, at 23:49, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

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.

In WG context, not in draft context: I do not think these inputs are in disagreement. If a draft can find -zero- implementers that think the draft is a sufficiently good idea that they write an implementation during draft status, the draft is, most likely, a bad idea.

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?

Because of privacy concerns (currently raised in section 7 of the draft quite briefly), PowerDNS will not be implementing this protocol.

Kind regards,
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to