Tim/Suzanne -
Please cancel the request for publication until you complete the WGLC
for this document.
The last WGLC for the document was October of last year - it failed on
28 October
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg21225.html. No
WGLC has been made since then.
The consensus referenced in the shepherd's report was meeting consensus
- not mailing list consensus AFAICT. Specifically, I'd like to see if
Ed's removed his objections. I don't have a problem with the WGLC being
used to judge consensus - but that's not what happened here.
Later, Mike
On 7/6/2018 9:08 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 7/6/2018 8:13 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Tim Wicinski has requested publication of
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-12 as Proposed
Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
*sigh*
Point of order: Did I miss the final WGLC on this after this last
version was published? I can't actually find anything in the DNSOP
archives and I don't remember seeing the call. So I'm suggesting
that we've missed a required stage.
With respect to the shepher's writeup:
1) The first reference in the shepherd's write-up is wrong - its
pointing to a whole other set of discussions related to Joe Abley's
ideas.
2) The second reference isn't representative of the actual discussion,
but only shows the point at which I got worn down. Please include a
reference that actually shows the attempts to try and resolve my issues.
3) This document should not be a Proposed Standard as it documents
nothing implementable (that is nothing implementable in a computer),
but is operational guidance for the publication process.
4) Is it usual for the WG chair to write the shepherd's report?
Specifically, it seems a conflict of interest for items (3) -(6).
5) The technical summary is misleading. This is not an update to
5011, but guidance to the zone publisher who may have not understood
the implications of operational choices (e.g. steady state single
trust anchor vs 5011s recommendation of multiple trust anchors). E.g.
"RFC5011 DNSSEC Key Rollover Strategy" isn't a document referenced by
this document, and that would be the document that would be in need of
an update.
6) Same comment - it's not an update to the 5011 timers, but to the
understanding of the publishers of such zones that use 5011.
7) Please include references of the emails of the "root server
community" review - AFAICT, Ed Lewis was the only one to comment on
the list and the last comment was last year.
Mike
Mike
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
