Eliot and Warren,
As I remember, the idea was to split original
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis to two different RFCs - one in the ISE
stream which should describe the operations for use GOST-2012 algorithms
in DNSSEC, and other in the IETF stream which should obsolete RFC 5933
and update RFC 8624.
I suggest to move on both draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec and
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis (I'll make changes to the drafts once you
answer me) to resolve this situation.
Boris
22.10.2023 15:38, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) пишет:
A quick status from the ISE:
draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec was formally submitted to me for
consideration as an independent RFC in May of this year. Before I make
a publication decision, there are a number of issues that need to be
addressed:
* What to do about RFC 5933? The original draft obsoleted that RFC,
and independent submissions *can't* do that.
* What to do about the very minor update that the original draft
made to RFC 8624. Again, independent submissions can't make
changes to status of IETF works.
* There are also some IANA issues that must be resolved. A special
thank you to Amanda for catching them.
As to the work's stream, the authors brought their document to the ISE
and it is likely to meet the publication criteria, once the above
issues are addressed. If the IETF now decides to still move forward
on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis, that's fine with me as well. My one
request, should this matter be reconsidered, is that the matter be
discussed and decided in a timely fashion, in fairness to the
authors. I'll be around in Prague, and I look forward to seeing many
of you.
Eliot
On 21.10.2023 19:24, Warren Kumari wrote:
[ +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
<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/
<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]
<mailto:[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
