Re: Recall: Key rollover Work.

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
> 
> On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Gustavo Lozano asked:
> 
>> I want to know what the status of this proposal is.
> 
> Gustavo,
> 
> Thanks for asking, you are the first person that makes me sure that my
> mail did not hit everybody's spam filter.
> 
> In a separate thread the other week I posted a proposal.
> 
> 
>> 1 - All editors off drafts make sure that their drafts are alive in
>> the repository. (before start of summer, June 21)
> 
>> 2 - Maybe some editors want to revoke their draft in lessen the
>> entropy in this space or just because they think another draft is
>> superior
> 
> 
> What we have is currently, without having talked to any of these folk:
> 
> Expired:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold
> I am not sure what Ihren and Manning would like to see happening to this
> proposal.
> 
> About to expire:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers
> I work from the assumption that this is one of the (promising[*])
> candidates
> 
> And from individuals we have:
> draft-laurie-dnssec-key-distribution-02.txt
> 
> Finally there is Thieries work:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-moreau-dnsext-takrem-dns-02.txt
> 
> Note that this document (version 2) now has a "Derivative Works
> Limitation" given RFC3978 that excludes it from becoming a working group
> document. That also means that it is reasonable to not expect people to
> put any effort into reviewing and improving it. I am not sure what the
> procedure is when people want to run with version 1 of the document that
> was less restrictive. If people think then takrem is the best technology
> after sliced bread and it should be considered for working group
> adoption than feel free to post that on the list, we can either work
> with the author or sort out if it is possible to go from version 1.
> 
> DLV is not on the table as far as I am concerned.
> 
> In practice this means that we have 3 documents to consider.
> 
> 
>>
>> 3 - We start a reading round of one month. Here we need working group
>> participants doing real work (!). I would like to see (at least 5?)
>> people to read _all_ the drafts. (before IETF meeting (?))
>>
>> 4 - While reading drafts reviewers create issue lists
>>
>> 5 - All people that read _all_ drafts (hopefully more than 5) will
>> provide their motivated preference, say a top 3. Motivation is to be
>> based on requirements. (There are folk who did proposal comparison.
>> It would be good if those were reviewed and reposted at that time).
>>
> 
> Note that Alberto Martínez Herrera's comparison is still available at:
> http://docs.nicmxlabs.org.mx/itesm/dnsseckeyrolloverproposals.pdf
> 
> I recall there is a second comparison but I cannot find it.
> 
> Still we new more reviewers. By having people comment and choose on
> proposals we can get forward progression.
> 
> 
>> 6- We compile a shortlist of 1 or 2 documents and work to technically
>> improve those to get a consensus outcome.
>>
>>
>> I am hesitant to spend to much face-2-face time on rehashing previous
>> discussion. But if we manage to have some review done, issues
>> identified, and preferences stated, we may actually be able to make
>> real progress.
>>
>> I'd say that committed reviewers need anything between 1 to 3 days to
>> do this work.
>>
>> Any comments, alternative approaches, takers?
> 
> As I am trying to come up with a reasonable way to pick up forward
> momentum, this is still an open question: comments, alternatives, takers?

Well, I guess I'm a taker if there's any interest in my approach.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>