Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Barry,

> On 29 Aug 2015, at 12:55 am, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Supporting one point about updating the draft:
> 
>>> At the suggestions of Mark Nottingham & Richard Barnes (cc:) we have
>>> refrained from issuing revisions to the draft because of the impending
>>> 2015-09-03 IESG telechat, in order that discussion does not derail for
>>> pursuit of a moving target
>> 
>> Comments from other ADs are asking about the comments that have not
>> been addressed.  The effect of this is that the ADs are reviewing and
>> don't know if outstanding comments from reviewers in last call will be
>> addressed.  I recommend asking the sponsoring AD if you could upload a
>> new version today.  I didn't cast my ballot after reading it yet as
>> the SecDir review wasn't addressed and Christian had some good points.
>> 
>> If we at least had a version to look at that addressed the points, it
>> would help some of us... even if it's posted elsewhere.
> 
> I really don't understand the allergy that some of us seem to have
> toward updating drafts.  The fact that people are reviewing the draft
> shouldn't matter.  Why, if there are updates pending, should anyone
> consider it more useful to continue to have people review an old
> version, when we could be posting a new one for review?  It makes no
> sense to me, but it's common advice.
> 
> I suggest we encourage people to post revisions when they think it
> would be useful, and only hold back under specific circumstances that
> we think merit an unchanging draft for a while (such as, we have
> updates proposed but they're still being batted around and aren't
> ready to commit yet).
> 
> I'd rather have people reviewing the latest version, rather than
> re-raising things that were already discussed and addressed.

*sigh*

I'm sure the authors will be happy to update the draft. The advice we Richard and I gave was ~two days before the IESG telechat, and it didn't seem wise to update it at that point.

If the IESG would like to set a clear, unambiguous policy about this, I'm sure it would be welcomed; personally, I've heard advice both ways, and have not yet figured out how to make everyone happy.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/