[DNSOP] Warren did a bad (was Re: Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-13.txt>)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

[ +DNSOP for real this time]
Dear DNSOP,

I accidentally did a bad.

Back in December 2022, when we were
progressing draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis, I sent this mail, but I missed
the fact that DNSOP was not actually on the To: line, and so missed these
discussions.

This email basically just agrees with Roman's suggested path forward in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XZoakWUDruPXylJ2wLIS4l4vevo/ ,
and asks if the ISE would take on the GOST stuff.

I also should have mentioned to the WG the ISE was
progressing draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec-03 and asked y'all to review.
Basically I was just received that it was finally moving along, and
completely  spaced on the "Oh, yeah, I should make sure DNSOP has seen
this" bit.

Apologies,
W

P.S: The discussions leading up to the ISE bit are all from 10-11 months
ago, so I've swapped out much of the state, and am still swapping it back
in…





On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 10:00 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear authors, and ISE (and Roman, PaulW, PaulH)
>
> Thank you for updating the document to address Paul Wouter's DISCUSS
> position ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis/
> ballot/#draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis_paul-wouters )
>
> Unfortunately I was unsuccessful in arguing that this should proceed in
> the IETF because:
> 1: the document only describes how to use GOST with DNSSEC (and doesn't
> define GOST itself)
> 2: RFC5933 was an IETF document which this obsoletes
> 3: the WG had updated the registry policy to allow this to become an
> Informational document and still progress in the WG.
>
> The IESG pointed to significant precedent on these sorts of documents
> going through the ISE, such as RFC 9189,
> draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites, and draft-smyslov-ike2-gost.
>
> Roman has proposed a fairly simple, and, assuming that the ISE is willing,
> fast and easy path forward: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/
> XZoakWUDruPXylJ2wLIS4l4vevo/ .
>
> So, while I'm sure that this is very frustrating to the authors, I'm
> asking you to please split the document as described. Again, I know that
> this is frustrating, and I'm willing to help with editorial issues, and
> Roman has agreed to assist as well.
>
> I'm also asking the ISE if they would be willing (please?) to take on and
> publish the (split) document, and, because it has already gone through the
> DNSOP WG, DNSOP WGLC, IETF LC, and IESG review, if they would be willing to
> fast-track it.
>
> Sorry for what I'm sure is discouraging news,
> W
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:06 AM, IETF Secretariat <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> IESG state changed:
>
> New State: IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
>
> (The previous state was IESG Evaluation)
>
> Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis/
>
>