Re: [DNSOP] Request to DNSOP chairs for a WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-11.txt

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 5 Apr 2018, at 5:44, Job Snijders wrote:

> Dear kskroll sentinel authors, working group,
>
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:45:18AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
>> With the submission of the -11 version of this draft the authors are
>> of the view that all WG comments have been discussed, and we think we
>> are now ready for a WG Last Call on this document.
>
> I believe that a crucial step in the advancement of any document in
> DNSOP, including this one, is to demonstrate the specification is 
> fully
> understood by ensuring multiple implementations exist.
>
> a) I recommend adding a RFC 7942 section to the document. Optionally
> this section can be removed upon publication.
>
> b) Implementations should document their compliance with this
> specification at 
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dnsop/wiki/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
>
> For each normative term there should be an appropiate interop /
> compliance test.
>
> For instance section 3.1 in essence is a test description. The last
> paragraph of Section 3.2 also contains what hints to a specific test
> scenario.
>
> c) 2119 was updated by 8174, i see must/should in lower case and 
> wonder
> whether there were normative intentions. Reviewing the lower cases 
> 2119
> terms may yield additional test cases.
>
> My personal view is that if no implemenation reports are readily
> available, it may be too early for WGLC.

In addition, the draft still has Section 2 at the front of the document 
instead in an appendix, but it also says that it will be an appendix 
when published. If the authors expect implementers to be able to 
implement with that section as an appendix, it should be moved there 
now, not later; otherwise, take out the text that says it will be an 
appendix.

--Paul Hoffman