On 2012-08-30 9:40 AM, Johan Ihrén wrote: > On Aug 20, 2012, at 17:33 , Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: >> >>> 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'.
dnssec-bis was delegated signer. dnssec-ter was type code roll. we're on dnssec-nextgen now. >> 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. > Not to question the abilities of the WG, but I still have to ask whether (in > your opinion) the operations community would be better off with a single > document that may be finished around Christmas Eve 2020 or rather live with > multiple docs that are published somewhat sooner than that. while i agree with these sentiments i have a broader concern. ietf's mantra is good engineering. if we know now that keytiming has flaws, and we are only considering publishing it because we know our own record shows that reaching consensus for keytiming-bis will take a long time, then it's an implicit indictment (by us) of our own record and habits. we should have a better reason for publishing two documents, like new ideas occurred to us after the first one was beyond reach of our pen, or they have different topics. paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
