Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 1/29/2021 10:22 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> All
>
> After a quick check with the other chairs, we're ready to move this 
> draft forward.
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl/>
>
> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Proposed Standard
> as it will update 4034, 4035, and 5155.
>
> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
> If this does not seem appropriate please speak out.
> If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please 
> speak out with your reasons.
>
> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 
>  12 February 2021
>
> thanks
> tim
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Hi Tim et al -

Sorry - I completely missed this document earlier.

I can't support this as Standards track even though it purports to 
update standards as it doesn't actually specify an implementable 
protocol.   Basically, this is dependent upon humans doing the right 
thing, rather than specifying behavior of the protocol.

For each of these, I'd recommend specifying what a client does in each 
of the cases, rather than weasel wording the SHOULD with respect to the 
zone contents to turn this into an implementable protocol.

E.g. for each of these clauses add something similar to "The client 
SHOULD/MUST reduce the effective TTL for the received NSEC RR to the 
lesser of the TTL of the current SOA record,  the TTL of the SOA, and 
the TTL of the NSEC RR record and MUST discard the NSEC RR when that 
effective TTL expires."

So - not ready for last call.

Mike