Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements -- Comment submission

[Thierry Moreau <[e-mail]>]

Dear IESG participants:

Now that the draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements comes to the IESG, 
I suspect the document should be reviewed with a broader perspective 
than the interoperability focus of the DNSEXT wg.

This draft is a requirements document that supports a protocol document, 
i.e. draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers. In the DNSEXT wg, I objected 
to the requirements document, but acknowledged that the protocol 
document seems coherent with the requirements as documented.

In this context, I bring to the IESG three questions about the 
draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements:

(A) Is the redefinition of IPR procedures in a working group 
requirements document an acceptable precedent in IETF governance? See 
the text of document section 5.2 which was instrumental in the adoption 
of the protocol document by the DNSEXT wg.

(B) ICANN (with the assistance of its IANA operating entity and DNS root 
operators) is the foremost operator for the protocol to be adopted by 
the IETF for automated DNSSEC trust anchor key rollover. Was the ICANN 
perspective taken into account in the document development process to 
the satisfaction fo the IESG?

(C) In the later phase of DNSEXT wg activities in this area, an IESG 
member expressed concerns about the absence of a security model in the 
protocol document (see comment by Eric Rescorla  at 
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01027.html 
and replies by Mike St-Johns at 
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01036.html 
and myself at 
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01038.html). 
Does the IESG perspective call for a greater attention to a formal 
security foundation in the requirements specifications phase as well?

Despite my personal reservations about the DNSEXT wg process that 
brought the two drafts to their current state, e.g. question (A) above, 
I do not challenge the fact that rough consensus was reached at the wg 
level. Thus, the above three questions would be relevant to the extent 
that the IESG perspective may be more encompassing  than the wg one.

Thanks for your attention to the DNSSEC protocol extension project; in 
any event, it remains a fascinating application scheme for public key 
digital signatures.

Best regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: [phone]
Fax:  [phone]

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [e-mail]


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf