Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hi, On 11/06/2018 22:15, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:43, Job Snijders wrote: > >> For what it's worth - all my concerns have been addressed. > > +1 to Job's feeling. Thank you all. >> I believe >> the document to be in good shape now and would support a progression >> through

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:43, Job Snijders wrote: For what it's worth - all my concerns have been addressed. +1 to Job's feeling. I believe the document to be in good shape now and would support a progression through WG LC. except that we already went through WG Last Call. The changes to

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Dear all, For what it's worth - all my concerns have been addressed. I believe the document to be in good shape now and would support a progression through WG LC. I appreciate the effort the authors have put into making this an exemplary specification! Kind regards, Job On Mon, Jun 11, 2018

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Dear WG (and chairs), Firstly, thank you to everyone who supported this, those who provided comments (especially pull requests!) and implementers. We have made a number of improvements to the documents based upon your comments - the diff can be seen here:

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

And the MR was peer-review and merged into BIND master branch with intent to backport the feature into older release branches. I don’t think it’s a useful or helpful to change the rules for existing adopted work. We need to have a discussion on the mechanisms that would allow implementors to

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hello Suzanne, On 6 Apr 2018, at 23:49, Suzanne Woolf wrote: We’re hearing that having an RFC will be helpful to promoting implementation, and also that this draft may not be ready to be advanced for publication because it doesn’t include implementation experience. This is something the WG

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

I'd like the WG to close on this. It feels to me like we've had useful edit in the call and the document is now stable and ready to move onto the next phase. Ship it. -George On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:35 AM, tjw ietf wrote: > > After walking through the 168 emails on this

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: > Hi Suzanne, Warren, DNSOP WG, > > > On 7 Apr 2018, at 04:09, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf > wrote: > >> > >> > >> WG

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hi Suzanne, Warren, DNSOP WG, > On 7 Apr 2018, at 04:09, Warren Kumari wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> >> WG vendors/implementers: Can folks who have implemented kskroll-sentinel, or >> considered implementing

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:09:50PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: > I think I heard that ISC was considering adding support, but was > planning on waiting till RFC / some sort of LC. Yes. The work in progress is available here: https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/merge_requests/123 -- Evan

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to > separate comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments > on WG guidelines for future documents. > Yup, I fully

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hi, Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to separate comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments on WG guidelines for future documents. > On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Apr 6, 2018, at 14:43, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:15:47 +, > Job Snijders wrote: > >> While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be >> explicit to avoid any confusion. >> >> This document is *not* ready for publication.

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

At Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:15:47 +, Job Snijders wrote: > While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be > explicit to avoid any confusion. > > This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation > report available for review and

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Dear Warren, On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:37:15AM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > > While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the > > be explicit to avoid any confusion. > > > > This document is *not* ready for

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > Hi all, > > While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be > explicit to avoid any confusion. > > This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation > report available for review and

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 14:01, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote: > > > >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel > >> we're ready to take this to WGLC. > >> > >> (We are

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote: > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote: > >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel >> we're ready to take this to WGLC. >> >> (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul) > > Especially given that an

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote: After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel we're ready to take this to WGLC. (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul) Especially given that an implementation is in fact available (in Knot), why not take

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Thanks Job for keeping *me* straight. Tim On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > Hi all, > > While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be > explicit to avoid any confusion. > > This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hi all, While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be explicit to avoid any confusion. This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation report available for review and consideration. Should the working group produce an implementation report and