Re: [DNSOP] Comments on mic comments, 5011 update's authorship
Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Fri, 08 December 2017 01:06 UTC
Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4C8129465 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:06:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oLI9SBJbvQ-l for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:06:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (dawn.hardakers.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:187::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A251128B38 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:06:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA5C8209C1; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:06:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <121B74B2-A670-48E2-B4DF-09E02F376012@icann.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 17:06:16 -0800
In-Reply-To: <121B74B2-A670-48E2-B4DF-09E02F376012@icann.org> (Edward Lewis's message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:34:11 +0000")
Message-ID: <yblindi9gfr.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/B1WO549kSm-32wV8AE4AdwYORX4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comments on mic comments, 5011 update's authorship
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 01:06:19 -0000
Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> writes: Ed, Sorry for the delay in a response. Too many recent deadlines and vacations... > It seems that there is an impression that I feel the authors of the > 5011-update draft are wrong choice to be documenting this. This is > not meant to be a personal attack on the authors but a blanket comment > on seeing operator-focused documents being produced without operator > involvement. (Apologies if it is thought to be an ad hominum > "attack".) I do understand that it wasn't anything personal. > It isn't that Wes and Warren aren't qualified to write the document. > I'm commenting on the legacy of documents written by protocol > designers that are passed off as operations guidance. I think this is where the biggest misconception may lie about the purpose of our document. The document is structured as a mathematically defined security line that you MUST NOT cross, not as operational guidance. We even state so multiple times in the document and I do hope that a future document (authored by someone else) comes out as a BCP or informational document that truly does give good advice, from a publishers point of view, about the best way to use RFC5011 and suggested timing mechanisms for key-rolling things like the root and other domains. This document is a security analysis result, however, and it may be that you might think this was actually the wrong group to submit it through? [good story about operators not reading RFCs...] > Since then I wondered what could be done to improve the usefulness of > RFCs to operators and why I have begun to think of "return on > investment" of documents. I sure wish we had a better answer to this problem, as it's been plaguing the O&M section of the IETF for decades (forever?). Unfortunately, I suspect that there isn't nearly enough "real operator content" here (IETF) to attract the attention of operators. It still looks and feels and smells like a protocol engineer camp, and if you're an operator and have the choice of spending time and a travel budget toward an IETF or toward a *OG/RIPE, it's much more likely you'll head toward the dedicated operational camps. I'm not sure that means we shouldn't produce work out of the O&M area though, as we have a lot of people from operator companies that are here as proxies at least. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
- [DNSOP] Comments on mic comments, 5011 update's a… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Comments on mic comments, 5011 update… Wes Hardaker