Re: Recall: Key rollover Work.
Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk> Wed, 28 June 2006 01:28 UTC
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Recall: Key rollover Work.
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:28:13 +0100
Lines: 107
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20060612102822.03b52c00@ogud.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060612174002.03d76008@nominum.com> <2805B0B0-CFA9-49E7-8ABD-4279673564D8@NLnetLabs.nl> <6.2.5.6.2.20060626105457.050ea9a8@nic.mx> <1C71D26A-A127-42B8-948B-F2808A3AC947@NLnetLabs.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Gustavo Lozano <glozano@nic.mx>, Namedroppers <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org Wed Jun 28 03:36:31 2006
Return-path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
To: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <1C71D26A-A127-42B8-948B-F2808A3AC947@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418072211.2560.51660.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Gustavo Lozano asked: > >> I want to know what the status of this proposal is. > > Gustavo, > > Thanks for asking, you are the first person that makes me sure that my > mail did not hit everybody's spam filter. > > In a separate thread the other week I posted a proposal. > > >> 1 - All editors off drafts make sure that their drafts are alive in >> the repository. (before start of summer, June 21) > >> 2 - Maybe some editors want to revoke their draft in lessen the >> entropy in this space or just because they think another draft is >> superior > > > What we have is currently, without having talked to any of these folk: > > Expired: > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold > I am not sure what Ihren and Manning would like to see happening to this > proposal. > > About to expire: > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers > I work from the assumption that this is one of the (promising[*]) > candidates > > And from individuals we have: > draft-laurie-dnssec-key-distribution-02.txt > > Finally there is Thieries work: > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-moreau-dnsext-takrem-dns-02.txt > > Note that this document (version 2) now has a "Derivative Works > Limitation" given RFC3978 that excludes it from becoming a working group > document. That also means that it is reasonable to not expect people to > put any effort into reviewing and improving it. I am not sure what the > procedure is when people want to run with version 1 of the document that > was less restrictive. If people think then takrem is the best technology > after sliced bread and it should be considered for working group > adoption than feel free to post that on the list, we can either work > with the author or sort out if it is possible to go from version 1. > > DLV is not on the table as far as I am concerned. > > In practice this means that we have 3 documents to consider. > > >> >> 3 - We start a reading round of one month. Here we need working group >> participants doing real work (!). I would like to see (at least 5?) >> people to read _all_ the drafts. (before IETF meeting (?)) >> >> 4 - While reading drafts reviewers create issue lists >> >> 5 - All people that read _all_ drafts (hopefully more than 5) will >> provide their motivated preference, say a top 3. Motivation is to be >> based on requirements. (There are folk who did proposal comparison. >> It would be good if those were reviewed and reposted at that time). >> > > Note that Alberto Martínez Herrera's comparison is still available at: > http://docs.nicmxlabs.org.mx/itesm/dnsseckeyrolloverproposals.pdf > > I recall there is a second comparison but I cannot find it. > > Still we new more reviewers. By having people comment and choose on > proposals we can get forward progression. > > >> 6- We compile a shortlist of 1 or 2 documents and work to technically >> improve those to get a consensus outcome. >> >> >> I am hesitant to spend to much face-2-face time on rehashing previous >> discussion. But if we manage to have some review done, issues >> identified, and preferences stated, we may actually be able to make >> real progress. >> >> I'd say that committed reviewers need anything between 1 to 3 days to >> do this work. >> >> Any comments, alternative approaches, takers? > > As I am trying to come up with a reasonable way to pick up forward > momentum, this is still an open question: comments, alternatives, takers? Well, I guess I'm a taker if there's any interest in my approach. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff -- to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
- RFC2672bis DNAME update document Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair
- RE: RFC2672bis DNAME update document Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- Re: RFC2672bis DNAME update document David Blacka
- Re: RFC2672bis DNAME update document Mike StJohns
- Re: RFC2672bis DNAME update document Mark Andrews
- Re: RFC2672bis DNAME update document Paul Vixie
- Re: RFC2672bis DNAME update document Mark Andrews
- Key rollover work, was Re: RFC2672bis DNAME updat… Olaf M.Kolkman
- Re: Key rollover work, was Re: RFC2672bis DNAME u… Gustavo Lozano
- Recall: Key rollover Work. Olaf M. Kolkman
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. bmanning
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Sam Weiler
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Olaf M. Kolkman
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Edward Lewis
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Robert Story
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Ben Laurie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Ben Laurie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Paul Vixie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Olaf M. Kolkman
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Olaf M. Kolkman
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Paul Vixie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Sam Weiler
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Paul Vixie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Sam Weiler
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Edward Lewis
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Paul Vixie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Sam Weiler
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Paul Vixie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Suresh Krishnaswamy
- Is keyrollover neccesary? (was Key rollover Work.) Gustavo Lozano
- Re: Is keyrollover neccesary? (was Key rollover W… Paul Vixie
- Re: Is keyrollover neccesary? (was Key rollover W… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Wouter Wijngaards
- Re: Is keyrollover neccesary? (was Key rollover W… Edward Lewis
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Wesley Griffin
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Thierry Moreau
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Is keyrollover neccesary? (was Key rollover W… Ben Laurie
- Re: Is keyrollover neccesary? (was Key rollover W… Paul Vixie
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Gustavo Lozano
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Suresh Krishnaswamy
- Re: Recall: Key rollover Work. Olaf M. Kolkman