Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis, must-not-sha1, must-not-ecc-gost

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Apr 2024, at 00:19, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2024, at 17:38, Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Please review these drafts to see if you think they are suitable for adoption
>> by DNSOP, and send any comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
> 
> The WG already has many important DNSSEC-related documents that are not getting enough attention from WG participants. Each of those documents would have much more significant effects on the security of the DNS than these proposed documents. The WG should not adopt these proposed documents until the more important documents have been standardized.

I don't find the security value in these documents as easy to assess as you do. I think in general this is a difficult thing to determine and often only possible with the benefit of hindsight. 

I also don't think that simple, procedural documents that are straightforwardly-written and uncontentious ought to present a big drain on the resources of the working group. I think if we all tried really hard not to nitpick or to play amateur copy-editors we could probably last-call simple documents quite quickly and move on with our lives. 

There are costs outside the working group (write-ups, IESG telechat time, etc) but while we obviously don't want to dos the wider collective it's not obvious to me that we should make it our job to manage those resources. If we want to say something, we should say something.

To put it another way, if it's so hard to publish a document like must-not-sha1 that the best way to win is not to play, we are doing it wrong.


Joe