Reacting on the "when to implement" part of the subject, and speaking for NLnet Labs.
On 08/05/2018 11:11, Peter van Dijk wrote: >> From implementors point, it makes little sense to start implementing >> before the protocol change is almost fully baked (aka WGLC and >> further), because until then the protocol might change considerably. > > It makes little sense to call a protocol change ‘fully baked’ if nobody > has checked that implementation is even possible. I think there is a sweet point when developers start to think of implementing a draft. Not necessarily WGLC, but a stable document is preferred with us at NLnet Labs. (We indicated this also on the mic in the Prague DNSOP WG meeting (or Singapore?) for the kskroll-sentinel draft.) As Ralph Dolmans mentioned in his email on the list (specifically for the kskroll-sentinel draft): "We need a somewhat stable specification before we make code that will be used in the real world to prevent pollution and in this case would make it even harder to do proper measurements." Above is specific for the kskroll-sentinel draft of course, and for other drafts this point for adoption to get a (prototype) implementation can be earlier or later. -- Benno -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
