On 10 Jul 2018, at 11:35, Michael StJohns wrote:
And as you may have guessed I object to the publication of this document on the basis of quality for all the reasons previously stated. This version of the document is actually in worse shape than the one that failed last call back in October.
Documents go to WG Last Call to determine consensus and fix errors; this document appears to have done both, so there was no failure.
I strongly object to the publication of this document as a Standards Track document. The appropriate status - if published - is Informational with or without a BCP tag on it.
There is no such thing as a "BCP tag". An RFC that is a BCP is treated as a standard. See Section 5 of RFC 2026.
The document does not provide any implementable protocol, and by that I mean that the only protocol elements in this document must be executed by humans. There is no on-the-wire elements, nor any process that can be implemented by a DNS resolver or server. This is solely and only an operational practices document,
True.
and AFAICT, none of these have ever ended up as Standards Track.
Not true. Plenty of WGs, including this one, put operational documents on standards track.
Or to put it more bluntly - humans are not protocol elements that can be standardized.
True, but not relevant to the issue at hand.
Finally, this purports to update RFC7538 which is Informational.
That's a good point. The WG draft that led to RFC 7538 was marked as Informational for its entire lifetime, so the WG must have thought it was OK to treat key rollover timing considerations as Informational.
--Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
