Stephen, Thanks for all your edits. I've implemented almost all of them. There are a few remaining which I'd like to discuss with you, I'll send that to you privately. And I'll make sure to submit a new version before Oct 25.
I do see your concerns regarding 4.8 (Legal Matters), and that this may be out of scope for some, or even most drafters of DPSs. I think we are quite clear that we do not provide any legal advice here. However, I do have seen the need for clarifying the legal status of the DPS and also to provide references to other agreements. This is where we need this section. Those not in need of the legal section are completely free to leave it without any stipulation, while still being in compliance with the framework. On the other hand, I think all of Section 4.4 (Facility, Management and Operational Controls) is central for being able to evaluate the level on confidence one can put into the operator function. Moving into a DNSSEC signed zone also puts more pressure onto the contingency planning. I agree that the organization "should" have all this in place (and in those cases, it will be very easy to disclose what is being done), but we all know this may not always be the case and (IMHO) can't be left as an assumption. So I would suggest we keep those sections and remember that everything that a drafter considers to be out of scope in respect to his/hers situation can be left without stipulation. regards, -- Fredrik On 2010-09-30, at 17:39, Stephen Morris wrote: > (Hat off) > > I've had a look at draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-02 and have the > following main comments: > > Section 4.4 Facility, Management and Operational Controls > There is a lot in here about disaster recovery planning that an organisation > should already have documented. Ought this document simply concentrate on > the DNSSEC aspects and just assume that such plans exist? > > Section 4.8, Legal Matters > I can't help feeling that the section goes well beyond the scope of what > should be in a DNSSEC policy statement. A lot of this would be applicable to > any contract between two parties, so does it really belong in this draft? > > There were a number of other issues about phrasing and typos - I have sent > those directly to the editors. > > (Hat on) > > The working group adopted the draft last year but since then there has been > little discussion of it on the list. With DNSSEC at last looking as if it is > really starting to take off, this is a timely document. Please have a look > at it and give feedback. > > Stephen > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
