Re: [DNSOP] Expiration impending: <draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 09 October 2015 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407D31A1AA8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 UE4M6HMDUFL2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42A41B4A73 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CF910662 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:08:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MC5F0uB00Uqg for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:08:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-73-142-68-92.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.142.68.92]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C873610739 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:08:33 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:08:32 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20151009190831.GK20427@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20151009011039.36478.qmail@ary.lan> <90410066-79B0-4DDE-89F7-CE2BB5DA2307@karoshi.com> <E6CCA2DC-7EA6-40BC-BBFE-EAE3505589A3@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E6CCA2DC-7EA6-40BC-BBFE-EAE3505589A3@hopcount.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/w_ARaThsVeqImluedqR4xgKdWoA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Expiration impending: <draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 09 Oct 2015 19:08:36 -0000

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 07:41:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> When we published RFC 7108 as an independent submission there was no
> suggestion that the IETF expected to wield change control over the
> operations of L-Root.

Independent submissions are not IETF products.  I think that's what
Bill (and Paul, for that matter) are talking about.

> The only outcome I can see if we tried the same approach with
> dnssec-trust-anchor is that we will want future mechanisms for trust anchor
> publication (since the current mechanisms can, should and surely will be
> improved) we will want mention of them also to appear in the RFC series,
> updating or obsoleting the earlier guidance as appropriate.

Those sound like "should be IETF products" in a way that the current
case doesn't.  I still think this is all an artificial and distracting
distinction, but Bill and Paul are right that if you're just trying to
publish "here's how we do it" without any helpful changes from the
IETF the ISE is the way to handle the document.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com