IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jakob Schlyter <jakob@kirei.se> Mon, 05 October 2015 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jakob@kirei.se>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68121A1A91 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdeO_Z648Zod for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spg.kirei.se (spg.kirei.se [IPv6:2001:67c:394:15::9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 721EB1A1A78 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kirei.se; s=spg20100524; h=received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=EW4K6IcXBfKCzH8aXrddi7rQ1pI/dJheM3BzLqPW8Is=; b=mkjEWoNsVXUFJbXxFIM8zQJTQ4OyelN0VkTKKppJu0uLr9jyUIH4TDxMBsXBbsUOchyESjYjUdaq/ ajWjUOtTuS4C+a8ybkN83+5N6Qeg5Sc55tUJBohFFzcrta45d3+KdwtI3AtLyQ2Yxchurc2bsQr4Bo AfOn2iNkEAmJrDfw=
Received: from mail.kirei.se (unknown [91.206.174.10]) by spg-relay.kirei.se (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:50:51 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3095\))
From: Jakob Schlyter <jakob@kirei.se>
In-Reply-To: <63E1E01E-C172-4A0F-B434-F796546BB657@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:50:50 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C4FA9FA6-76E3-4FF3-862B-C5C0DF75C761@kirei.se>
References: <20150928114202.823.19868.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0E4AA958-7740-4602-A3CF-D2E481DBC15E@hopcount.ca> <20150928155325.GA63874@gaon.net> <20150929095301.32c3e6a3@casual> <13F1D87F-1C07-40EB-86B0-564C4109C9B0@virtualized.org> <1973252D-924F-4EF1-A38F-5EC01AD331F6@gmail.com> <FDD04DCC-59C5-41F5-8CAF-1EF31CD65A34@virtualized.org> <63E1E01E-C172-4A0F-B434-F796546BB657@gmail.com>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3095)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UZPk9O0PMaWxoocjS2nPBAHlaZc>
Cc: draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor@ietf.org, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Expiration impending: <draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:50:58 -0000

On 4 okt. 2015, at 20:27, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:00 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> 
>> I've since been told that the draft doesn't actually document current practice (don't know the details), so this probably needs to be fixed.
> 
> What "needs to be fixed"? That the draft doesn't document current practice? Given that's the stated goal, I'd appreciate clarification from the authors on what they think needs to be done before it meets that goal, and whether they're willing to work on it.

As far as I'm aware, the document does document current practice. At least, what it describes was true back in 2010 when I wrote the code and as far as I know nothing as changed (i.e., the published files has not changed).

>>> Well, as a technicality, I don't see that this draft was ever adopted by the WG.
>> 
>> Perhaps that might be a good next step?
> 
> Might be. I was attempting to suggest a shorter path to publication might be possible, given the extensive record of discussion on the document over several years-- we've been known to do a combined adoption/WGLC on a document not expected to need much work in the WG.

I'm not sure what adoption would give us as the document aims to document current practice, and nothing - except clarifications - is up for discussion.


	jakob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email