IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Fri, 06 April 2018 11:18 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 4E3851243FE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:18:11 -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 mCf9zznfqZM0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:18:10 -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 D09D31201FA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:18:09 -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 C77CA6A299; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 13:18:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.242.2.68] (unknown [10.242.2.68]) (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 627023C0114; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 13:18:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 13:18:06 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11r5462)
Message-ID: <EDCD23B6-C97A-4701-9AEE-2F2CF1B4E403@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+EE9YCCM03wKvd-HefpoQVqhOfeeLKLV8L2LJj+tqmEzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+EE9YCCM03wKvd-HefpoQVqhOfeeLKLV8L2LJj+tqmEzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nI2b8hsGODB1QY5v5WtWf4TaAlo>
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, 06 Apr 2018 11:18:11 -0000

On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote:

> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I 
> feel
> we're ready to take this to WGLC.
>
> (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul)

Especially given that an implementation is in fact available (in Knot), 
why not take this opportunity to start demanding Implementation Status 
sections for those drafts where that requirement makes sense? Because it 
certainly makes sense here!

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

v2.2.0 | Report a Bug | By Email