Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis

Pete Resnick <> Thu, 05 March 2015 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0711A901E for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8Q9zzzpLdvO for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74A931A8FD6 for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1425530230; x=1457066230; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qbzxn8LBGlwiWLV0CmgYfp+qgN5x8sxXwMuGWVRkcl8=; b=eSZYdFNGy/E+klPhavtUfZQ+4lVxIfeZSYVwektux/vl49kX+B2s1Sf3 TEK/VbkHehS4ly+1FsCAY7KVKwq+7o7MLecSWQht3NyUZkEya4YdwQQLk ULos+V3feNza3dA/YXRBv5mnbIZ56ugxRXRXs5cx+DCLs4YJy2YbPMvEg Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7730"; a="198432561"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Mar 2015 20:37:10 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,345,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="854139771"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 04 Mar 2015 20:37:01 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:00 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 22:36:59 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IAB <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 04:37:14 -0000

On 3/4/15 9:43 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I wanted to come back to the status of the discussions.
> We have an ongoing discussion of the changes Marc made on the -02. My read of the feedback is that the update has done the right things, but:
> 1) Paul Hoffman’s clarifications&  editorial changes seem useful, but I would like to hear what others think.

I think Paul's suggested change to the first paragraph in section 1 is 
spot on. Now that RSSAC has completed RSSAC001, perhaps something like:

The operational requirements are defined in [RSSAC-001]. This
document defines the protocol requirements and some deployment
This document only defines the protocol requirements and some
deployment requirements; the operational requirements that were
defined in RFC 2870 are removed. Operational requirements are
now defined by the Root Server System Advisory Committee of ICANN
and are documented in [RSSAC-001].

And then remove the second paragraph of 1.1, which becomes unnecessary.

> 4) I’ve also received feedback from IESG members that the text about moving 2870 to Historic in Section 1.1 could be problematic. While I’m not sure that is necessarily the case, I think this draft merely replaces 2870, so I am not sure we need to say anything more.

Yeah, I'm one of the folks who thinks "Historic" is unnecessary (and 
potentially a pain). The fact that this is obsoleting 2870 is 
sufficient, and all it really needs to do is replace 2870 in the BCP 
series by adding "BCP: 40 (if approved)" to the top. I'd just make that 
change and strike section 1.1 entirely.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478