-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/20/2012 05:33 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: > >> Andrew, >> >>> In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. >>> >>> But I do not observe the announcement of a WGLC. I am wondering >>> when we might expect that call. >> >> both chairs have taken advantage of the season at least a bit. >> One of the chairs has recused himself being a co-editor, so this >> is the document shepherd. Issuing the WGLC involves reviewing >> the draft as well as the recent discussion to generate framing >> questions. >> >> In this particular case, several members of the WG, some of which >> I remember having been in favour of WGLC during the Vancouver >> meeting, had expressed support for a major change to the draft >> suggested by Matthijs Mekking on July 24 >> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09767.html> >> That would basically mean folding significant parts of >> 'keytiming bis' into the current 'key timing' draft. > > That was my (probably biased) memory as well.
Yes, me too. > >> My current reading of the sense of the WG is that we move to >> WGLC with -03, declaring the July 24 suggestion out of scope for >> this document and keep momentum for 'dnssec bis'. > > That's one way to do it. A better one would be to start WG LC on > key-timing with an explicit question to the WG about folding in > the keytiming-bis changes. That way, the WG would know the status > of both, and we would would possibly produce just one document. > The operations community would be better off with just one > document, if this WG can do that. I am afraid that one document just isn't sufficient. Adding a rollover time line requires a fair amount of pages to cover the timing details (at least with the current approach). The current document now covers six time lines. When we want to add time lines for Single Type Signing Scheme, Algorithm Rollover and Policy Rollover, we can come up with about ten more time lines. It would become a very lengthy document, arguably even longer than 4641bis ;). In my opinion, it would be better to categorize them and deal with them over multiple documents (one document per category). We then could use one document which has the base terminology, so we can refer to, for example, the key state definitions in future documents. However, then we have to make sure that the key state definitions are flexible enough to be able to describe these other rollovers (and I am afraid that the current key state definitions are not). Best regards, Matthijs > > --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQMzT4AAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5RrcH/jYzbcEkaSCJdBUCJ4Ju9C6u P7EBEKxiL6mSPXcXPX6i9dZ8ZEnOJF3HX+1CYizLAtKHWiiUTiTduegnbCLwkn3s HvqzEE6h4izwvRZtbKRqTT05DAZGoL61/M/lhVA74z6OiP99D1BX6I9qFjxZCYeY mtOVGuaOtOcofcEf/loKCgDfy9hOzJ2HVZeptmWiTYLp/fBhYrzE3YHBePJqbQHM tTAKbgQc2whhKtCnxsKeo80Rland/F1XGb44sApijnZFsFIAEvorfdmQCQ6qsCRS PzIwTuUdYNFTiy7Bj8tT2NMAr9wfYHKvjQ6aZKKW9cTBw4ICTdedP91MPLK1Fw4= =MDnw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
