IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 10 July 2018 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26097130E24 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 w-EQq8OndPKK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 7EF7F130DC4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41Q5Fv0N5RzDm5; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:09:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1531235363; bh=EgHGD2sDmTl8U5kI6qGw9S+dV7w3zTEq4HvVudeBDu4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=nSuaQZUWTIwgIpCqFdeOFiWKhXjpZQbNHTH1rRg8QFzyWWONn6l+ulZXbJAGhgBXD 913FGEANAhHWdX4WyrNHG/ocHTsv3IJWhUlVfhiO5k6vbdEg3aIol/r233nCHBUktW Z7J5zdwOxnDRo/F/u+cvu6v7rxroxFc6QJHql7Ik=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lmmQg6GkG2St; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:09:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:09:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7805939A6A8; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 7805939A6A8
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D5C41682B5; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:09:19 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+E6S1K2Rt6gWMNkM6pYEJE1J7EGajuc_+ZjES5+KWxaoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1807101104250.5219@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+E6S1K2Rt6gWMNkM6pYEJE1J7EGajuc_+ZjES5+KWxaoA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dlgIqAZMwEotpXQ1RVNVLOc09fw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:09:28 -0000

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
> 
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec/

I've reviewed the draft. It seems to me this is mostly a description of
novel uses of IETF protocols and possible business models. I don't see
a strong case for publishing this as an RFC and have a preference for
DNSOP to focus their time on working on protocol/operations matters and
our communal backlog of that.

So I am not in favour of adoption, but I would not object to adoption
either if that's how others want to spend the DNSOP time.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email