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

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2015, at 12:20, manning wrote:
> 
>> On 9October2015Friday, at 4:41, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Aside from the motivation to provide a useful technical specification in a place where it can be easily found, I continue to feel that it is important that significant infrastructural elements of the Internet be described in the RFC series, even if they don't contain IETF working group output. This is our historical record. We would be doing a disservice to future enquiring minds if we chose to do otherwise.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> It does beg the question however, why is this even being discussed in an IETF WG if its not expected to be IETF WG product?
> 
> My assumption was that there's value in awareness in this venue, and that any competent shepherd will require positive indications of review from the relevant technical community, and this is it. Apologies if people feel differently, though; despite appearances to the contrary, I'm not simply on a mission to drown everybody in mail.

Please note for the record that the chairs supported this course of action.

This wasn't the first time that WG discussion seemed useful for a document that would benefit from review in the WG even though not a WG document. It will not, I hope, be the last.

> So to clear up the lingering ambiguity, the authors are not requesting adoption of this document by the working group; we'll pick it up with the ISE. I will be bothering those who have demonstrated an opinion in due course for reviews for Nevil.

This sounds like the right course of action to me from what we've seen here.

thanks,
Suzanne