[ +DNSOP for real this time] Dear DNSOP, I accidentally did a bad.
Back in December 2022, when we were progressing draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis, I sent this mail, but I missed the fact that DNSOP was not actually on the To: line, and so missed these discussions. This email basically just agrees with Roman's suggested path forward in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XZoakWUDruPXylJ2wLIS4l4vevo/ , and asks if the ISE would take on the GOST stuff. I also should have mentioned to the WG the ISE was progressing draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec-03 and asked y'all to review. Basically I was just received that it was finally moving along, and completely spaced on the "Oh, yeah, I should make sure DNSOP has seen this" bit. Apologies, W P.S: The discussions leading up to the ISE bit are all from 10-11 months ago, so I've swapped out much of the state, and am still swapping it back in… On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 10:00 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear authors, and ISE (and Roman, PaulW, PaulH) > > Thank you for updating the document to address Paul Wouter's DISCUSS > position ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis/ > ballot/#draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis_paul-wouters ) > > Unfortunately I was unsuccessful in arguing that this should proceed in > the IETF because: > 1: the document only describes how to use GOST with DNSSEC (and doesn't > define GOST itself) > 2: RFC5933 was an IETF document which this obsoletes > 3: the WG had updated the registry policy to allow this to become an > Informational document and still progress in the WG. > > The IESG pointed to significant precedent on these sorts of documents > going through the ISE, such as RFC 9189, > draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites, and draft-smyslov-ike2-gost. > > Roman has proposed a fairly simple, and, assuming that the ISE is willing, > fast and easy path forward: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ > XZoakWUDruPXylJ2wLIS4l4vevo/ . > > So, while I'm sure that this is very frustrating to the authors, I'm > asking you to please split the document as described. Again, I know that > this is frustrating, and I'm willing to help with editorial issues, and > Roman has agreed to assist as well. > > I'm also asking the ISE if they would be willing (please?) to take on and > publish the (split) document, and, because it has already gone through the > DNSOP WG, DNSOP WGLC, IETF LC, and IESG review, if they would be willing to > fast-track it. > > Sorry for what I'm sure is discouraging news, > W > > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:06 AM, IETF Secretariat < > [email protected]> wrote: > > IESG state changed: > > New State: IESG Evaluation::AD Followup > > (The previous state was IESG Evaluation) > > Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ > draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis/ > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
