Re: [DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-12

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

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. 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>