Re: [DNSOP] Expiration impending: <draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Sun, 04 October 2015 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9AE1B3477; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuBSScOYGp18; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 144711B3473; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgx61 with SMTP id 61so133109670qgx.3; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8+vDfPI8OIpLXa+ZMqdqv2JhfCW+YxJc5DrFZxvz8wk=; b=rR22Po4x5qbnE4BBDPhMiNCfdX8exspzKAzhS+A8qvOgie6Jx28ygY3rPAm61jGyI3 pBZynIf/xCjV6DLXTqcwlG4BLe30/VTIZGp72zMNP2p3MRW6kp1BAjB9B3XETeUHCeBX sWe42R7Jhz86KQWxjib9gG2I2IKRXLE+2kNMqPr9J+9Iq306vBLV3kznwj76Hcssnc+t gvzqBExZjTLgNochEcSw2O1KvwUgyBB/De1XjldvudGO3ZOiW7x3U6ZuRZA64PYmpwCB 8yGsDpamjkrIEJj2AkSiAZkWrbNWgonyH1cWQr+MknKGd8AiWa/xFODKfAjSpdK0hNH6 5kWQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.194.148 with SMTP id p142mr36352603qha.84.1443983230126; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c002:25ee:3943:cb3d:f2d2:59cf? ([2601:181:c002:25ee:3943:cb3d:f2d2:59cf]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z196sm9414499qhd.22.2015.10.04.11.27.09 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FDD04DCC-59C5-41F5-8CAF-1EF31CD65A34@virtualized.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:27:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <63E1E01E-C172-4A0F-B434-F796546BB657@gmail.com>
References: <20150928114202.823.19868.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0E4AA958-7740-4602-A3CF-D2E481DBC15E@hopcount.ca> <20150928155325.GA63874@gaon.net> <20150929095301.32c3e6a3@casual> <13F1D87F-1C07-40EB-86B0-564C4109C9B0@virtualized.org> <1973252D-924F-4EF1-A38F-5EC01AD331F6@gmail.com> <FDD04DCC-59C5-41F5-8CAF-1EF31CD65A34@virtualized.org>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/8rv4DRLnAO3yM9hX-8G9IlP1ZZI>
Cc: draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor@ietf.org, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Expiration impending: <draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:27:15 -0000

All,

Your co-chair is a little confused.

On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:00 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:

> I've since been told that the draft doesn't actually document current practice (don't know the details), so this probably needs to be fixed.

What "needs to be fixed"? That the draft doesn't document current practice? Given that's the stated goal, I'd appreciate clarification from the authors on what they think needs to be done before it meets that goal, and whether they're willing to work on it.
> 
>> Well, as a technicality, I don't see that this draft was ever adopted by the WG.
> 
> Perhaps that might be a good next step?

Might be. I was attempting to suggest a shorter path to publication might be possible, given the extensive record of discussion on the document over several years-- we've been known to do a combined adoption/WGLC on a document not expected to need much work in the WG.

But judging by your comment above, it's hard to say how much work remains to be done on it, since we've also got folks eager to preempt WGLC altogether.

Authors?


thanks,
Suzanne