From nobody Wed Oct 19 13:23:05 2022 Return-Path: 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 9FC75C152574; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:23:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8gT-C1Cpd5l; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1B0C15256B; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id cb2-20020a056830618200b00661b6e5dcd8so10183311otb.8; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FUi8uhttb17uVxNQ18FGsKzMOpmyciZq0H0XslmMK5U=; b=lrHJrblr+sd7DxsTtlt0oMc6DPbSHUBtppTrbsaf5KlsI2BrezGZdi2ZeIUNQ/+01m SWSCeJ273Y1HBOiHVKNPtUrGwq9660pqXpTahJtfKZ4WZ/vhjJLZeb8IFuYKW7xjo7xm b5md+cuzjILO/qQtr0cRzAm95ow5lPYQN8UmfvNFui8+VUY7TXxQpq3NB7ztRIZeKJnM JmntUC+6Mj1Vj5D4A3dVACbaiPX1XBm2xvMOljgJGrQWx9i/m1mZWAtWYA9merd0f7p4 KhNaEOJa2b3ckhKcF6Vwiv9gm35F2IjMSltctAjPZPl5MzRX5citc02V6MfcctW8v6dy f6FA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=FUi8uhttb17uVxNQ18FGsKzMOpmyciZq0H0XslmMK5U=; b=45WCs+FIaCrgQEtczd9sPZHW8IkPPvhR9OR2I63Y1AjeFVRuUM6fcMMbSKj9D6Jqa1 GYYb0zZHcZ2pEPZwo4DPqm033w7p229Ni98p05U11phRqtAPVj7boC8I4VjuEgr2zrOA WDDwdw+KPZ1gPd1Ba5fOS7iPFtRW3IWt1R6zoXZ2I5tFVdnhfgsz8hVqCGo+PdyjdBRI a+3jj9rGf4yVT85eWGGOE/uQer1dXNlCKccamXVycdG6W7IFiue5ks59axQCwbnpA0uQ bORvQ+u9JnDu9ah+7ec6YVuUzYieEwewWBRAXrfGJ1nvmFTmrzTZj0XvOj+JMABIIjpo fmSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3axFxcLlpskSdSuRroVpctEKKcGBPpupOnHgVzTmB2fVRZYO0D NtkG4V/r54KB0jCIAvt/d1OCNt3qh1qCzSrQxuE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6XAm2oOKhBRtDNj2/QcYsEi7FpQIRuNuXyWLrpLolVDA1dwS/KM/baql9r42qyrYJqn0Pn/ryxRMlOUZv6Q6w= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:f65:0:b0:661:e250:f368 with SMTP id 92-20020a9d0f65000000b00661e250f368mr5171496ott.4.1666210809450; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Tim Wicinski Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:19:58 -0400 Message-ID: To: Brian Dickson Cc: dnsop , dnsop-chairs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b162105eb68ef94" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 20:23:04 -0000 --0000000000006b162105eb68ef94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Brian I would feel the best approach would be to suggest the additions during WGLC and allow the working group and the authors to work through them. If it turns out there is an issue with consensus during the WGLC, we'll pause that process. Does this help? thanks tim On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:13 PM Brian Dickson wrote: > Quick meta-question: > > If there is new information that would suggest additions to the document > as helpful (improves document), which would be the normal or best approach: > > - Ask for additions to the document during the WGLC itself > - Offer comments on the addition alongside a request to delay the WGLC > until the authors have had a chance to review/respond to the comments > - State the opinion that the document is not ready for publication, > based on the comments > > Brian > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:22 PM Tim Wicinski wrote: > >> >> >> This starts a Working Group Last Call for >> draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements >> >> Current versions of the draft is available here: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements/ >> >> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Informational >> >> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. >> If this does not seem appropriate please speak out. >> If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please >> speak out with your reasons. >> >> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 2 >> November 2022 >> >> thanks >> tim >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > --0000000000006b162105eb68ef94 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

B= rian

=
I would = feel the=C2=A0best approach would be to suggest the additions during WGLC a= nd allow the working group=C2=A0and the authors to work=C2=A0through them.<= /div>
If it tur= ns out there is an issue with consensus during the WGLC, we'll pause th= at process.

D= oes this help?

thanks
= tim

<= /div>

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:13 PM Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
= Quick meta-question:

If there is new information that wo= uld suggest additions to the document as helpful (improves document), which= would be the normal or best approach:
  • Ask for additions= =C2=A0to the document during the WGLC itself
  • Offer comments on the = addition alongside a request to delay the WGLC until the authors have had a= chance to review/respond to the comments
  • State the opinion that th= e document is not ready for publication, based on the comments
Brian

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:22 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>= ; wrote:

=
This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-valid= ator-requirements

Current versions of the draft is available here:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draf= t-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements/

The Current Intended= Status of this document is: Informational

Please review the draft a= nd offer relevant comments.
If this does not seem appropriate please spe= ak out.
If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, p= lease speak out with your reasons.

This starts a two week Working Gr= oup Last Call process, and ends on: =C2=A02 November 2022

thanks
= tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--0000000000006b162105eb68ef94--