Dear kskroll sentinel authors, working group, On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:45:18AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: > With the submission of the -11 version of this draft the authors are > of the view that all WG comments have been discussed, and we think we > are now ready for a WG Last Call on this document.
I believe that a crucial step in the advancement of any document in DNSOP, including this one, is to demonstrate the specification is fully understood by ensuring multiple implementations exist. a) I recommend adding a RFC 7942 section to the document. Optionally this section can be removed upon publication. b) Implementations should document their compliance with this specification at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dnsop/wiki/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel For each normative term there should be an appropiate interop / compliance test. For instance section 3.1 in essence is a test description. The last paragraph of Section 3.2 also contains what hints to a specific test scenario. c) 2119 was updated by 8174, i see must/should in lower case and wonder whether there were normative intentions. Reviewing the lower cases 2119 terms may yield additional test cases. My personal view is that if no implemenation reports are readily available, it may be too early for WGLC. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
