Hello Suzanne,
On 6 Apr 2018, at 23:49, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
We’re hearing that having an RFC will be helpful to promoting
implementation, and also that this draft may not be ready to be
advanced for publication because it doesn’t include implementation
experience. This is something the WG needs to comment on further,
because it seems substantive to me so it will have to be addressed one
way or another before we advance the document— but those inputs are
somewhat in disagreement.
In WG context, not in draft context: I do not think these inputs are in
disagreement. If a draft can find -zero- implementers that think the
draft is a sufficiently good idea that they write an implementation
during draft status, the draft is, most likely, a bad idea.
Editors: Please take “concern about a description of current
implementation status” as WGLC input, and consider what you might be
able to add to the draft to address it.
WG vendors/implementers: Can folks who have implemented
kskroll-sentinel, or considered implementing it, please speak up on
your concerns/plans?
Because of privacy concerns (currently raised in section 7 of the draft
quite briefly), PowerDNS will not be implementing this protocol.
Kind regards,
--
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
