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

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

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]>
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.
> 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/d
>>> oc/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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>