On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be > explicit to avoid any confusion. > > This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation > report available for review and consideration. >
[with absolutely no hats] I get that you believe that this is wrong, but DNSOP currently has no requirement for there to be an implementation report (nor for there to be any implementations). The way to change this is by proposing that this change (done), having the discussion (ongoing) and then having the chairs declare consensus and that they will require this going forward. It would also be useful for there to be clarity about what exactly is required, and for what sort of documents (e.g how does one implement attrleaf? or SUDN?), and when this would go into effect. A number of people have told me that they wait until something becomes an RFC before being willing implement it (some of this may be because a significant number of adopted document have simply expired and not been published) - suddenly requiring implementations is a large change, and deciding it now and retroactively applying it to documents which were about cooked seems a little unreasonable. I'd also note that this somewhat disenfranchises participants who a: don't code and / or b: don't work for a vendor. I'm (of course) fine if the WG / chairs decide that DNSOP needs implementations before progressing documents, but your wording makes it sound like you believe this this is already the case, and not simply your (strong) preference. W > Should the working group produce an implementation report and demonstrate > multiple implementations before April 15th, I’d ofcourse be willing to > reconsider my position. > > Kind regards, > > Job > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 18:36, tjw ietf <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel >> we're ready to take this to WGLC. >> >> (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul) >> >> >> This starts a Working Group Last Call for: >> draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel >> >> Current versions of the draft is available here: >> https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel/ >> >> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Proposed Standard >> >> In the brushing of the camel, the draft is focused on determining if >> a particular root key has been loaded into resolvers. >> >> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. >> If this does not seem appropriate please speak out. >> if someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak >> out with your reasons. >> >> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: >> 23:59 19 April 2018 >> >> thanks >> tim >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
