On 8 Oct 2015, at 22:25, manning wrote:
perhaps… I think (well it used to work this way) that regardless of
HOW it comes under IETF purview, once it does,
it is no longer under the change control of the submitting
organization.
I think this is a bit of a red herring.
When we published RFC 7108 as an independent submission there was no
suggestion that the IETF expected to wield change control over the
operations of L-Root. The process involved the ISE reaching out for
multiple independent reviews and, once satisfied, pushing it upstream.
My impression is that there was a desire that the document be clear and
accurate, but no ambition to moderate its content more generally.
The only outcome I can see if we tried the same approach with
dnssec-trust-anchor is that we will want future mechanisms for trust
anchor publication (since the current mechanisms can, should and surely
will be improved) we will want mention of them also to appear in the RFC
series, updating or obsoleting the earlier guidance as appropriate.
That successor document could contain the revised guidance within its
pages, or it could provide a stable reference to wherever the revised
guidance now lives. Either way this doesn't seem like much of an
inconvenience.
Aside from the motivation to provide a useful technical specification in
a place where it can be easily found, I continue to feel that it is
important that significant infrastructural elements of the Internet be
described in the RFC series, even if they don't contain IETF working
group output. This is our historical record. We would be doing a
disservice to future enquiring minds if we chose to do otherwise.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
