On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 05:52:12PM -0500, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:19 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> > First off, this is an RSSAC document so it is not clear why you think
> > someone from the root
> > opserator community should do the copy editing.
>
> There is a large/complete overlap between the RSSAC and the root server
> operators. Many of the companies that operate root servers have staff doing
> many things, such as technical writing. Some have copy editors. The fact that
> ICANN has not done a copy edit pass on the document after five rounds says
> that maybe you should look to others. Waiting for ICANN to do this might be
> futile, given that it doesn't involve making policy.
You are mistaken.
while all root server operators are part of RSSAC, RSSAC is a much
larger community
with membership from all the RIRs, ISOC, Research Facilities, and
Governments. I'll
note that ISOC, through the IAB has a presence on RSSAC. Perhaps we
could have ISOC
provide copy editing?
> >> The text in 3.2.5 doesn't make sense. NTP can't be on the list if the
> >> operator is expected to get time updates "in as secure manner as
> >> possible". A proposed rewording would be to just remove that phrase
> >> because you describe what operationally is needed to use NTP in a
> >> non-crypto secure manner.
> >
> > or ... update the text to describe secure NTP - which is not uniformly
> > used.
> > or the use of local "clocks".
>
> You can't say "can use NTP" and "in as secure manner as possible": they don't
> match.
then you recommend we strike SNTP from the document? There are ways to
harden
and NTP only system without going completely to a secured NTP (SNTP)
system.
And from my experience, if one takes proper precautions and prudent
design choices
one can deploy a resistant NTP strucuture without the crypto overhead
on the SNTP
datagrams or channels. So I am confident that we can, in fact, say
with a straight
face say that servers should use NTP or SNTP in as secure a mnner as
practical/possible.
Its being done.
> You can use URLs in author references. However, the RSSAC web page is mostly
> worthless unless you like bureaucratic history. The root-servers.org page is
> useful. If you don't want to provide a useful URL, that's fine.
again, RSSAC is not just the root operators. If you want us to include
a tangentially
related URL, we could just as easily use www.ietf.org as
www.root-servers.org
in as far as the RSSAC represents either of those groups.
> --Paul Hoffman
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
