Hi dnsop, I support adoption under condition that the envisioned "DNSSEC Transparency" mechanism is documented and somewhat tested before "powerbind" draft progresses into form of RFC.
At the moment there are insufficient details published for the dnsop WG to judge whether powerbind+transparency proposals together fulfill intended purpose. I would hate to see "powerbind" published for vendors to implement before (at least!) proof-of-concept implementations of powerbind _and_ Transparency are done. That's the only way to make sure some little details are not preventing vendors from implementing practical proposals. RFCs 7901 (CHAIN extension) and 8094 (DTLS) should serve us as warnings. Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC On 20. 04. 20 20:03, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular call for adoptions over next few months. > > From the presentation during the last meeting, there was interest in > adtoping this document around the idea of DNSSEC transparency. This > interest comes the privacy side of things, more than the DNS side. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-pwouters-powerbind > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pwouters-powerbind/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > > This call for adoption ends: 4 May 2020 > > Thanks, > tim wicinski > DNSOP co-chair _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
