On 5 Oct 2015, at 8:50, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
On 4 okt. 2015, at 20:27, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:00 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
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.
What "needs to be fixed"? That the draft doesn't document current
practice? Given that's the stated goal, I'd appreciate clarification
from the authors on what they think needs to be done before it meets
that goal, and whether they're willing to work on it.
As far as I'm aware, the document does document current practice.
It does not. It describes a mixture of some of the current practice and
some aspirational hopes for how things might be done. Further, it is
incomplete in many aspects.
At least, what it describes was true back in 2010 when I wrote the
code and as far as I know nothing as changed (i.e., the published
files has not changed).
The document goes well beyond describing the files, and this is where it
fails. Further, the files are not the only way that the trust anchor is
published, so the document is fairly incomplete.
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?
Might be. I was attempting to suggest a shorter path to publication
might be possible, given the extensive record of discussion on the
document over several years-- we've been known to do a combined
adoption/WGLC on a document not expected to need much work in the WG.
I'm not sure what adoption would give us as the document aims to
document current practice, and nothing - except clarifications - is up
for discussion.
If it is not up for discussion, then the document should not be
progressed in the IETF at all. Instead, the description of the ICANN's
publication methodology should be published by ICANN.
This WG should instead consider a very different document: how the IETF
thinks that the DNSSEC trust anchors should be published in order to
help DNS operators. Joe Abley has an expired (?) draft on this topic. A
discussion of what ICANN and others should do for publication seems
quite relevant to the aims of this WG.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
