On Dec 19, 2023, at 11:27, Michael StJohns <m...@nthpermutation.com> wrote: > > After reading the thread, I'm confused as to why there's any question as to > adoption. This is an independent submission replacing an independent > submission
The whole point to a call for adoption in an IETF WG is that this is *not* meant to be an independent submission: it is meant to be an IETF work product. > , and is directive only on ICANN and explanatory for everyone else. > > Section 5 has "This document describes how DNSSEC trust anchors for the root > zone of the DNS are published." That's incomplete: "This document describes > ... are published by ICANN." is more correct. Good point; will fix. > So the IETF will have no real change control over this document. Not at all true. The IETF gets complete change control over any WG document. Of course, if the WG doesn't adopt the draft, it will likely go through the ISE stream again, but the intent of IANA and the authors is to have this be an IETF document. > There's no reason to make this a WG draft - and lots of (we're too busy > already) reasons not to. If the IETF wants input about how the root's trust anchors are handled, doing so in an IETF-managed RFC seems like the best way to do that. > Instead, make sure the ISE knows that we'd (DNSOP) like a chance to comment > before publication, but that DNSOPs comments should not be show stoppers. To > address Geoff's note below - the mere desire to have external/peer review > does not translate into a need to make this a WG draft. Fully agree: making this a WG draft *also* gives the WG control over its contents. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
