Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates

Dear colleagues,

On 7 Feb I noted some outstanding issues that were pending prior to
the end of WGLC.  I want to go through the results of the discussion I
saw.

On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:18:20AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> ISSUE 1: Indeterminacy of Indeterminate

>     DEFAULT ACTION: none.  Without proposed text that finds strong
>     support, this issue will be left out of the document.  

There was not proposed text and strong support, so the issue is not
taken up.  To my eyes, the discussion mostly revealed that there are
subtle inconsistencies but that it doesn't seem to have a practical
difference.

> ISSUE 2: Ignoring CNAME signatures

>     DEFAULT ACTION: none.  

This is the plan.

> ISSUE 3: Alter section 5.10

>     DEFAULT ACTION: Include the "If a site has only a single trust
>     anchor …" sentence, and exclude the other proposed sentences.

This is the plan.  Editors, please make that adjustment.

> ISSUE 4: Request to change the language in 5.6

>     DEFAULT ACTION: Use the first formulation proposed ("In order to
>     interoperate with implementations that ignore this rule on
>     sending, resolvers need to allow either the DO bit to be set or
>     unset when receiving responses.")

This is the plan.  Editors, please make that adjustment.

> ISSUE 5: The CD bit redux

>     DEFAULT ACTION: none.

There was no follow up discussion on this, and I did not see expressed
support for Mark Andrews's proposed change, so that's the plan.

Sam, as editor you said you'd tracked some other items and were
planning to follow up.  Will you do that as soon as possible on the
list, please?  

Apart from those issues, I believe the document has received enough
review that it can be sent to the IESG. 

Thanks,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext