On 5 Apr 2018, at 5:44, Job Snijders wrote:
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.
In addition, the draft still has Section 2 at the front of the document
instead in an appendix, but it also says that it will be an appendix
when published. If the authors expect implementers to be able to
implement with that section as an appendix, it should be moved there
now, not later; otherwise, take out the text that says it will be an
appendix.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
