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

[manning <[e-mail]>]

On 9October2015Friday, at 4:41, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 22:25, manning wrote:
> 
>> perhaps…  I think (well it used to work this way) that regardless of HOW it comes under IETF purview, once it does,
>> it is no longer under the change control of the submitting organization.
> 
> I think this is a bit of a red herring.
> 
> When we published RFC 7108 as an independent submission there was no suggestion that the IETF expected to wield change control over the operations of L-Root. The process involved the ISE reaching out for multiple independent reviews and, once satisfied, pushing it upstream. My impression is that there was a desire that the document be clear and accurate, but no ambition to moderate its content more generally.
> 
> The only outcome I can see if we tried the same approach with dnssec-trust-anchor is that we will want future mechanisms for trust anchor publication (since the current mechanisms can, should and surely will be improved) we will want mention of them also to appear in the RFC series, updating or obsoleting the earlier guidance as appropriate.
> 
> That successor document could contain the revised guidance within its pages, or it could provide a stable reference to wherever the revised guidance now lives. Either way this doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Joe
> 

If true, then this is a swing back to “old school” IETF thinking and RFC editor function… which is (IMHO) an outcome to be devoutly wished.  
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?   

/Wm