[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-12; was Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-12

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Tim -

Note the changed subject line.

And as you may have guessed I object to the publication of this document 
on the basis of quality for all the reasons previously stated.  This 
version of the document is actually in worse shape than the one that 
failed last call back in October.

I strongly object to the publication of this document as a Standards 
Track document. The appropriate status  - if published - is 
Informational with or without a BCP tag on it.  The document does not 
provide any implementable protocol, and by that I mean that the only 
protocol elements in this document must be executed by humans.  There is 
no on-the-wire elements, nor any process that can be implemented by a 
DNS resolver or server.  This is solely and only an operational 
practices document, and AFAICT, none of these have ever ended up as 
Standards Track.   Or to put it more bluntly - humans are not protocol 
elements that can be standardized.  Finally, this purports to update 
RFC7538 which is Informational.


Mike



On 7/10/2018 1:38 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Michael
>
> We talked it over and if there was a process fail, it's easier to fix 
> now then later. I already reached out to the AD who is stepping in for 
> Warren to hold off for now.
>
> Let this be a Working Group Last Call on 
> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations.  This will go from 
> now until the end of the IETF next Friday.
>
> The Current Intended Status is: Standards Track
>
> We will be take comments on the changes now, and as well as during the 
> session on Wednesday.
>
>
> Tim
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael StJohns 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Tim/Suzanne -
>
>     Please cancel the request for publication until you complete the
>     WGLC for this document.
>
>     The last WGLC for the document was October of last year - it
>     failed on 28 October
>     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg21225.html
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg21225.html>.
>     No WGLC has been made since then.
>
>     The consensus referenced in the shepherd's report was meeting
>     consensus - not mailing list consensus AFAICT. Specifically, I'd
>     like to see if Ed's removed his objections.  I don't have a
>     problem with the WGLC being used to judge consensus - but that's
>     not what happened here.
>
>     Later, Mike
>
>
>
>     On 7/6/2018 9:08 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>         On 7/6/2018 8:13 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>             Tim Wicinski has requested publication of
>             draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-12 as
>             Proposed Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
>
>             Please verify the document's state at
>             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations/
>             <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations/>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             DNSOP mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>
>
>
>         *sigh*
>
>         Point of order:  Did I miss the final WGLC on this after this
>         last version was published?  I can't actually find anything in
>         the DNSOP archives and I don't remember seeing the call.   So
>         I'm suggesting that we've missed a required stage.
>
>         With respect to the shepher's writeup:
>
>         1) The first reference in the shepherd's write-up  is wrong -
>         its pointing to a whole other set of discussions related to
>         Joe Abley's ideas.
>         2) The second reference isn't representative of the actual
>         discussion, but only shows the point at which I got worn down.
>         Please include a reference that actually shows the attempts to
>         try and resolve my issues.
>         3) This document should not be a Proposed Standard as it
>         documents nothing implementable (that is nothing implementable
>         in a computer), but is operational guidance for the
>         publication process.
>         4) Is it usual for the WG chair to write the shepherd's
>         report? Specifically, it seems a conflict of interest for
>         items (3) -(6).
>         5) The technical summary is misleading.  This is not an update
>         to 5011, but guidance to the zone publisher who may have not
>         understood the implications of operational choices (e.g.
>         steady state single trust anchor vs 5011s recommendation of
>         multiple trust anchors). E.g. "RFC5011 DNSSEC Key Rollover
>         Strategy" isn't a document referenced by this document, and
>         that would be the document that would be in need of an update.
>         6) Same comment - it's not an update to the 5011 timers, but
>         to the understanding of the publishers of such zones that use
>         5011.
>         7) Please include references of the emails of the "root server
>         community" review - AFAICT, Ed Lewis was the only one to
>         comment on the list and the last comment was last year.
>
>         Mike
>
>
>         Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>