Thanks for the very detailed review! Due to family circumstances I cannot be at the dnsop meeting and I will not have time to review all the points you made before thursday.
However, since you highlighted this point in the hallway, I would like to ask
the working group for guidance.
>
> 4.1 Key Rollovers
> I would STRONGLY suggest that you minimize this section. Just give an
> overview of how the different rollover methods function and compare them with
> each other. Refer to the key timing draft, so that we do not get the timings
> in two documents.
From our hallway conversation I understand you mostly refer to the tables and
that the fact that text relies on them.
We have argued about this during our last face2face meeting. And my take-away
from that discussion was that the timings draft was supposed to be guidance for
implementors, while this draft is targeted to operators. My understanding was
that the tables where a helpful addition (a picture says more than a thousand
words).
Quickly going back to the minutes I noticed that the above argument (and a
counter-argument resembling yours, by Andrew) was captured. But that the room
made 'useful sounds' which I took for consensus with keeping the tables in.
I would like to get confirmation from the chairs whether that was is the
correct interpretation of the discussion instead of revisiting this issue.
There may be some more points in your review that are revisiting issues that I
think we closed. Unless the chairs instruct me otherwise I am tempted to keep
closed issues closed.
That said, I really appreciate your detailed review.
--Olaf
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
