Hi Tim, On 16 Dec 2023, at 14:56, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Therefore, the chairs seek additional feedback from the working group and > invite your opinion on its suitability for adoption by DNSOP. I was a co-author of the document that this one seeks to replace (and, for that reason, am listed as an author of this one). I have reviewed this text but I do not claim to have done any of the work involved in writing it. Generally, I think it's important that trust anchor publication be documented as part of the internet architecture. This document describes practices carried out by the root zone KSK maintainer and does not necessarily invite suggestions from this working group to change those practices. Given that, this document could plausibly proceed by a number of different routes, e.g. with AD sponsorship or as an individual submission. However this working group includes many stakeholders who are well-equipped to assess the clarity of the specification, and I think for at least that reason there is value in this document being adopted here. The document is (in my opinion) of high enough quality already that it won't be a huge investment of effort to get it published. If people are willing to review it, I think it should be adopted. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
