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

Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Tue, 12 June 2018 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 079E5130EBA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 03:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 hj-oQ9jE4UUG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 03:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [185.49.140.10]) (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 8591F130EB5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 03:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.nlnetlabs.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a04:b900:0:1:8d34:3cd6:ed30:a6eb]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70AFE8988; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:54:24 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1528800864; bh=v3Erif4iPQc1hW9e65e1Ou6BbNK3OlUlsiBHqDKk57o=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Dpv/2u5YEoZZiAUs14VCdi2KnlABRD2ci7pfW6rVwXTrOH1c/ixCWPxuHCC8RTh3T RjKt7pZ63MUWBobiWH2P9qQ2Wo/QYQsvWAipwxHp+EF3kJd8iicWhBifukOG/J9LAQ 2PDJ3IIZfnaLoMiaoou1064YboI1emUcNUkNfrHU=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
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> <CAHw9_iLTJUdTt_YnuC+sw2aNB10iGZ4bbcmOnf4i-y5Zssu0qw@mail.gmail.com> <20180407062714.GA63728@isc.org> <09F25B8D-25CA-47C4-B1A1-DA56B86D68F8@isc.org> <CAHw9_i+jp1qzy6cS7MKvA3jeXV4xhV6jeLZv3b8-=b63BbhCRA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC_V5D=3Jd74_+AWHMWoLCkZ790s0d7B7_r1QCjTYnArEA@mail.gmail.com> <0D693FB6-CB2E-48AE-B50F-C0DB89815B00@vpnc.org>
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <f4fd13f9-9c25-f972-b178-9c58de0ca247@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:54:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0D693FB6-CB2E-48AE-B50F-C0DB89815B00@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jowAGkzSsUWxp06jq56zADbinSQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 12 Jun 2018 10:54:33 -0000

Hi,

On 11/06/2018 22:15, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:43, Job Snijders wrote:
> 
>> For what it's worth - all my concerns have been addressed.
> 
> +1 to Job's feeling.

Thank you all.

>> I believe
>> the document to be in good shape now and would support a progression
>> through WG LC.
> 
> ....except that we already went through WG Last Call.
> 
> The changes to the document are large, but it is not clear to me that
> enough people are reading them to warrant another WG Last Call before
> sending it to the IETF Last Call.

Fair enough, we will coordinate with Terry Manderson, the AD for the
document, if another WG Last Call is appropriate.

Regards,

-- Benno

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/