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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Sun, 04 October 2015 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 16AB11B3425 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 XguC6xWt7cjv for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79D8F1B3426 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so156411593pac.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=g1l5psPQ5a1+cEfKvcEv4Rqb50DEfvteL7JKA4rA3tQ=; b=TiwTHe86rZQ97lxIgI8rgOGLYL9v0f7MA5JvgOGJGgIQBtIw4CzJ58YH+U72jeBALd 6m1phbEWT5zWYNidXij7WmCzKVq3WNIkbfxFaoQFZJTESUvIoDs6WBaygYhQ6WvOnO6u mLsxmbXMidlklkttKs9wlFEwAfFTEaz5Cbj9a4xINw1CQ9gj2cppcN92mGVhUSFdAfg4 gQqJk0izFCD+Eg8E8V9HNbZGpzxrhlwBeB6kMCr5poZpEl1vSwFGT/Q9T1tWTlTB8omM OwOlwR5wRE0MsV95JhDj7F6VOwRD+GL9IpE4tzfzQZWjHeqT09wBM/Jisvlc/+fGTubU TFmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEPjohw6c480/ZsbG1dgnHcNdVFgcsM4RbUK1I8PuvcXAafQjpI3QhWsn9rjusTQ6QL3US
X-Received: by 10.66.141.165 with SMTP id rp5mr34250267pab.127.1443981653071; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4300:6ed2:3e15:c2ff:fede:9b90? ([2601:647:4300:6ed2:3e15:c2ff:fede:9b90]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rx8sm23030516pbb.90.2015.10.04.11.00.51 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EFDD0282-3CB2-4FB7-8285-4321F64BF14E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <1973252D-924F-4EF1-A38F-5EC01AD331F6@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:00:49 -0700
Message-Id: <FDD04DCC-59C5-41F5-8CAF-1EF31CD65A34@virtualized.org>
References: <20150928114202.823.19868.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0E4AA958-7740-4602-A3CF-D2E481DBC15E@hopcount.ca> <20150928155325.GA63874@gaon.net> <20150929095301.32c3e6a3@casual> <13F1D87F-1C07-40EB-86B0-564C4109C9B0@virtualized.org> <1973252D-924F-4EF1-A38F-5EC01AD331F6@gmail.com>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yhtR1Z_dSXOpfbViNwn8PB5ErUo>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:00:56 -0000

Hi,

On Oct 2, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Preempting a WGLC, I support the document.  It states its aim of
>>>> documenting existing practices, and it does so clearly.
>>> 
>>> I agree completely. I am actually confused as to why it is not already
>>> an RFC.
>> 
>> +1

I've since been told that the draft doesn't actually document current practice (don't know the details), so this probably needs to be fixed.

> Well, as a technicality, I don't see that this draft was ever adopted by the WG.

Perhaps that might be a good next step?

Regards,
-drc