Hi all,
We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this draft. (Jakob is going to
bump it to -12; there have been no real updates apart from the version
bump in
I appreciate that the methods described in this document are not
universally liked. I have a feeling that we would get more discussion if
the question was more open-ended, e.g. how should trust anchors be
published?
This document describes existing practice, and provides guidance for
people who need to bootstrap a validator using the mechanisms provided
by ICANN back in 2009/2010 when the root zone was first published.
Here's a suggestion. If we were to consider publishing this document
as-is as a way of describing the current approach, we would at least
have a stable reference to the way we do things today. We could always
consider other approaches and, once implemented by ICANN, publish a new
document that obsoletes or updates this one.
If that's an approach that people could stomach, then I would suggest
the next step is to WGLC this document and for those who would like to
propose different mechanisms to write them down.
Chair-people, can we do that?
Joe
Forwarded message:
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org>
To: Guy Bailey <gubai...@microsoft.com>, Jakob Schlyter
<ja...@kirei.se>, Joe Abley <jab...@dyn.com>
Subject: Expiration impending:
<draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:42:02 -0700
The following draft will expire soon:
Name: draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor
Title: DNSSEC Trust Anchor Publication for the Root Zone
State: I-D Exists
Expires: 2015-10-08 (in 1 week, 2 days)
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
