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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 8 Oct 2015, at 11:08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:06:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
>> From my POV, nothing.  Paul seemed to be suggesting that the current
> arrangements should be published somehow other than as "an IETF
> document".  Maybe he meant "send it up the Independent Submissions
> editor with ICANN staff on the top".  I don't really know.

I did. To me, an organization that wants to publish its procedures 
should do so itself. If that organization wants to duplicate those 
procedures in the RFC series, then it should do so through the ISE, not 
wasting the time of the IETF.

> If that is what he meant, then I think the distinction is not that
> interesting.  IME nobody except a tiny fraction of IETF participants
> makes the ISE/IETF product distinction.

My preference is not because of the distinction of the series, but in 
the review process. I am sure that, no matter how often we say "this is 
documenting current practice only", people in the IETF will want to make 
changes based on different design preferences. That is a waste of 
everyone's time.

> If it's not what he meant, then I see no value in creating a new
> publication path.

Agree. (Mind you, if ICANN published many procedure documents in the RFC 
series, it might be worth considering having an ICANN stream in the 
future, but that consideration is likely to cause so much consternation 
it is not worth trying.)

> IMO, what is current practice, whatever it is, ought to be in the
> document.

Fully agree.

--Paul Hoffman