Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:05:51 -0400

Dear colleagues,

I've had a look at draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-04.  I have no
objections to the alterations to the document, and I say again what
I've been saying for, I think, two years now (maybe more): giving
useful advice, even if not perfect, on this topic will be more helpful
than producting perfect advice.  It ought to be easy to update the
document if we see that some things need improvement.  Many people are
deeply confused about key rollovers.  If we get the document out and
people start complaining about what's wrong with it, at least we'll
have evidence about what to improve.

Please publish it.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Ebersman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:21:53 -0600

ajs> giving useful advice, even if not perfect, on this topic will be
ajs> more helpful than producting perfect advice.
[...]
ajs> Please publish it.

+1

Many folks won't implement this until it's an RFC (.gov, etc.) but will
and give feedback once it's out. Perfect is the enemy of progress...

---

From: "Rose, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:27:40 +0000

I can't speak for all of .gov, but I think the draft is ready for publication.  Once it has an RFC number it will get worked into products and ops manuals.  Since a lot of .gov agencies outsource, or use appliances, I wouldn't expect much feedback. :)

Scott
________________________________________
From: DNSOP <[email-masked]> on behalf of Paul Ebersman <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing

+1

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Paul Ebersman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:10:16 -0400

srose> I can't speak for all of .gov, but I think the draft is ready for
srose> publication.  Once it has an RFC number it will get worked into
srose> products and ops manuals.  Since a lot of .gov agencies
srose> outsource, or use appliances, I wouldn't expect much feedback. :)

Having worked recently at one of said vendors, where .gov customers
wanted "that DNSSEC checkbox thingie" but did use various NIST and other
standards, it means that this RFC will get into the check list of RFCs
vendors need to say "yes" to in bids, so there will be use of the
recommendations.

Sadly, you are probably right on feedback from some of the vendors and
most .govs...

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:32:49 -0400

> Sadly, you are probably right on feedback from some of the vendors and

Not everyone who consumes our documents (or the results of them) is
going to tell us about their experiences.  On the other hand, a couple
of blog posts that read, "Well, I tried to follow RFCNNNN but after I
read it I was actually more confused than when I started," or, "If you
read RFCNNNN, it says quite clearly that foo," will tell us whether
we've a big problem or a little one or no problem at all.  Right now,
_nobody_ who doesn't already know what a DNSOP is will know about this
draft.  At least if we publish it, there's some hope people will find
it when searching for relevant RFCs.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 2014 19:56:51 -0000

>going to tell us about their experiences. 

I'm adding DNSSEC to the zones I host, and I've already found it
useful.  Ship it, please.

R's,
John

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:29:24 -0400

Thank to John, Andrew, Paul, and Scott for your comments.

I was originally going to start a very formal WGLC for this once I 
returned from Toronto, but two things stand out:
	1) a WGLC last call was done, and totally passed 2 years ago
	2) the changes are specific to address the second draft, and
	primarily editorial changes for readability.

So I'm going to do something different:  I will submit this document to 
the IESG Friday August 8th, 2014; unless I hear any violent and valid 
objections.

People are welcome to submit editorial comments, and they will be 
addressed.  People are welcome to pull the raw XML and post issues 
directly to the document here:
	https://github.com/DNSOP/dnssec-key-timing

If you feel so inclined, please submit a pull request with editorial 
changes.

This is slightly non-standard, but we've been down this road and this 
one is ready.

thanks
tim