Hi David, On 4 Oct 2015, at 14:00, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Preempting a WGLC, I support the document. It states its aim of >>>>> documenting existing practices, and it does so clearly. >>>> >>>> I agree completely. I am actually confused as to why it is not already >>>> an RFC. >>> >>> +1 > > I've since been told that the draft doesn't actually document current > practice (don't know the details), so this probably needs to be fixed. If you could share who told you that, that might be a good starting point :-) >> Well, as a technicality, I don't see that this draft was ever adopted by the >> WG. > > Perhaps that might be a good next step? We have other examples in recent history of an informational draft that documents current practice being published as an AD-sponsored document; examples that spring to mind are RFC 5855 and RFC 7108. But regardless of what mechanism is used to publish the document, we need to be sure that it has been well-reviewed in this working group. Certainly it's clear that it's not worth publishing if it doesn't document what it claims to document. In my opinion, the draft in this space that really does want to be a dnsop document is draft-jabley-dnsop-validator-bootstrap. Regardless of whether draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor proceeds as a wg draft, or as an AD-sponsored individual submission, or is dropped altogether, I really think we want the recommended mechanisms by which a validator sets itself up to be predictable and solid. That's important for validators running on a server with live human technical operators, validators running on home gateways and other embedded environments and everything in-between. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
