On Jun 18, 2020, at 16:48, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> Why is this WG considering making this document Standards Track instead of > Informational? Also, why is the WG considering putting the document in our > work stream at all? Can the WG can bring much value to the document itself? > We do have lots of other things we are working on. I think the question of the value the wg can bring is the important one. In this case it seems unlikely that dnsop has the expertise to review this document to the depths of the crypto. The degree to which the advice for DNSSEC implementers is clear and unambiguous can surely be assessed without putting it through the working group machinery. An individual submission will still require conflict review by the IESG and that will involve credible DNS people to express an opinion, so there will no doubt be some familiar faces from dnsop that are still involved in an individual capacity, but I think (as I think Paul infers above) that there is little benefit to adding this to the workload of the wg chairs and AD if we don't expect the document to benefit from corresponding levels of improvement. For what it's worth if this was to proceed on the individual submission stream and if the authors needed independent reviewers to express an opinion as part of that process I'd happily put my hand up with a DNS perspective. I almost certainly can't help with the crypto. The question of how dnsop tracks algorithms that exist and whether they are recommended or not is reasonably separate from whether this document should be published, I think. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
