Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Fri, 13 April 2018 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
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 F13871200F1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 GNEGkeLdgzix for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E02612025C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A4C6A30A; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:40:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.242.2.58] (unknown [10.242.2.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37FBD3C0110; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:40:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:40:19 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.1r5471)
Message-ID: <012DE293-B616-4A84-B4B5-1FEAFCC94A1B@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A943DE7-81BC-41AC-93F7-4EC0975DF6B6@gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+EE9YCCM03wKvd-HefpoQVqhOfeeLKLV8L2LJj+tqmEzA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC936z-4j8e+d7bvhfr_Mk8tk64tkuiRDTRtrqrBTJBKJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLgTvPHe5jeL-0QZJ4+cxes8bBpCEULuDKThpjXoKzrbA@mail.gmail.com> <20180406134501.GC49550@vurt.meerval.net> <4A943DE7-81BC-41AC-93F7-4EC0975DF6B6@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/efpKCCso4bUMmmljrQneMcJPwhI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:40:25 -0000

Hello Suzanne,

On 6 Apr 2018, at 23:49, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

> We’re hearing that having an RFC will be helpful to promoting 
> implementation, and also that this draft may not be ready to be 
> advanced for publication because it doesn’t include implementation 
> experience. This is something the WG needs to comment on further, 
> because it seems substantive to me so it will have to be addressed one 
> way or another before we advance the document— but those inputs are 
> somewhat in disagreement.

In WG context, not in draft context: I do not think these inputs are in 
disagreement. If a draft can find -zero- implementers that think the 
draft is a sufficiently good idea that they write an implementation 
during draft status, the draft is, most likely, a bad idea.

> Editors: Please take “concern about a description of current 
> implementation status” as WGLC input, and consider what you might be 
> able to add to the draft to address it.
>
> WG vendors/implementers: Can folks who have implemented 
> kskroll-sentinel, or considered implementing it, please speak up on 
> your concerns/plans?

Because of privacy concerns (currently raised in section 7 of the draft 
quite briefly), PowerDNS will not be implementing this protocol.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/