Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

神明達哉 <> Fri, 06 April 2018 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A529127136 for <>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QifBKqYq8eTP for <>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 11:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5E1124D68 for <>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g8so5275540wmd.2 for <>; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5Xb5gHlBv35sU/rBgIpLLrApMyI+oXMj+4sQbRnPhQA=; b=QR1m1T6Caces4RqOBUglLE+zrgU+h4IWkwf2e7h4fhjcAr8OTWfrWVm67HVl6wHIiw MDXnQbA8yJ+lC2LT79ewFyGOliMWJ1neac5Ow02/diUtFNpvJFmN99j1EpErlgbiNoOt x0Dita2K4ysV7lLYm99+hBQqZ5C4y0UvmXPhxN+zaFQs3pyV0GBeOiaMtAfNTRL3nMl4 6jGh7rfPq5+KTEjV2H727nTfuepj3p1E6zbrN0L7ZChZx9A5inTyhvQfkB8voSQ1xyd4 Ix+UytrI/KYCr4ZUPkkSSLRgdwThxfr3Psp4pJp5FxXTrQdkk7Zt/AbiHsAqwhKAytlM pNag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5Xb5gHlBv35sU/rBgIpLLrApMyI+oXMj+4sQbRnPhQA=; b=pWIEesOQBd+I1MztMpnTb95qDaG1FivaTPTg9nLPWJF2Xz1vuG7AGx1/xNgUh5/TiT Jekn0BTti2TZps6sU89rfOqXOd1gr74gk5LXqjDpSMnuKwAaDomWXBYpEwAUqdusoLtO wC1tPasIMN5sL9raYjj09uZAgekDF6apQT2S3Ocl/cbUf6AJdK+TdGHXlLfqXlKmsin1 0GJTpeQv4mr1XXblJtrY2drPdj+N4v7YW6pclvKgAk5bYIPWE50j5K71UZZEHAqzb3VF 00cPoZBukFr7JrNF3M97YSPsN+krpQ4r+n5mIrh54eUKno8Y/TdbfWtHfRvssMVDmT+v bGjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EMWPfoYedqbP2Ruqo8QMydEAUdQHMeiouXARNxoRpAUeFr7eiP D9Y/yQFiGULSrVozW1pHbkoVx0SoRKuvYr8W2VzGg+2d
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49R13mMD1VBHVBGV4L+GagIgPrPJEeXJFre2Kggq3HmrDpOiupthMqdpaLyGj/uK2dhpq8MFBZr+oihelpjevc=
X-Received: by with SMTP id b12mr13490155wmd.148.1523040238057; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 11:43:57 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1CGfm8C9BN5J4CtdMv1w9NISdUo
Message-ID: <>
To: Job Snijders <>
Cc: tjw ietf <>, dnsop <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:44:01 -0000

At Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:15:47 +0000,
Job Snijders <> wrote:

> While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be
> explicit to avoid any confusion.
> This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation
> report available for review and consideration.

(After reading other messages in this thread) I tend to agree.  Even
after careful reviews of protocol text, an attempt of actually
implementing it often reveals non-negligible issues that were
overlooked in the review.  Of course, it's a different question
whether dnsop adopts the requirement as a general rule for any
documents (although I would support the idea personally), at least in
this particular case I think it makes sense because:
- right now there's no known implementation of the latest version of
  the draft
- there seems to be some reasonable expectation that Knot will support
  the latest version not far from now
So it makes sense to me to hold off at least until Knot (or any other
implementation) actually adds
support for it or a sufficient amount of time (a couple of weeks?)
elapses without a news.  In the latter case we might discuss whether
we should make a compromise to move forward at that point.

JINMEI, Tatuya