Michael We talked it over and if there was a process fail, it's easier to fix now then later. I already reached out to the AD who is stepping in for Warren to hold off for now.
Let this be a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations. This will go from now until the end of the IETF next Friday. The Current Intended Status is: Standards Track We will be take comments on the changes now, and as well as during the session on Wednesday. Tim On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael StJohns <m...@nthpermutation.com> wrote: > Tim/Suzanne - > > Please cancel the request for publication until you complete the WGLC for > this document. > > The last WGLC for the document was October of last year - it failed on 28 > October https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg21225.html. > No WGLC has been made since then. > > The consensus referenced in the shepherd's report was meeting consensus - > not mailing list consensus AFAICT. Specifically, I'd like to see if Ed's > removed his objections. I don't have a problem with the WGLC being used to > judge consensus - but that's not what happened here. > > Later, Mike > > > > On 7/6/2018 9:08 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > >> On 7/6/2018 8:13 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >>> Tim Wicinski has requested publication of >>> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-12 >>> as Proposed Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group. >>> >>> Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/d >>> oc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DNSOP mailing list >>> DNSOP@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >>> >> >> *sigh* >> >> Point of order: Did I miss the final WGLC on this after this last >> version was published? I can't actually find anything in the DNSOP >> archives and I don't remember seeing the call. So I'm suggesting that >> we've missed a required stage. >> >> With respect to the shepher's writeup: >> >> 1) The first reference in the shepherd's write-up is wrong - its >> pointing to a whole other set of discussions related to Joe Abley's ideas. >> 2) The second reference isn't representative of the actual discussion, >> but only shows the point at which I got worn down. Please include a >> reference that actually shows the attempts to try and resolve my issues. >> 3) This document should not be a Proposed Standard as it documents >> nothing implementable (that is nothing implementable in a computer), but is >> operational guidance for the publication process. >> 4) Is it usual for the WG chair to write the shepherd's report? >> Specifically, it seems a conflict of interest for items (3) -(6). >> 5) The technical summary is misleading. This is not an update to 5011, >> but guidance to the zone publisher who may have not understood the >> implications of operational choices (e.g. steady state single trust anchor >> vs 5011s recommendation of multiple trust anchors). E.g. "RFC5011 DNSSEC >> Key Rollover Strategy" isn't a document referenced by this document, and >> that would be the document that would be in need of an update. >> 6) Same comment - it's not an update to the 5011 timers, but to the >> understanding of the publishers of such zones that use 5011. >> 7) Please include references of the emails of the "root server community" >> review - AFAICT, Ed Lewis was the only one to comment on the list and the >> last comment was last year. >> >> Mike >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
