Subject: [dnsop] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-03

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:41:05 -0500

This is a working group last call on the "DNSSEC Operational
Practices" draft, draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-03,
which we hope to submit to the IESG for consideration as a BCP
document.

This last call will terminate at 21:00 UTC on 9 March 2005.

Please clearly state to the mailing list whether you support or oppose
this draft going to the IESG.

Please do not express an opinion if you have not read the draft.

As always, please discuss substantive issues on the WG mailing list.
Minor editorial comments may be sent directly to the draft authors
(please CC the WG chairs on any such comments so that we can track
this).

Thanks,

Rob & Dave
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:33:44 -0500

I support this draft going forward.  I know there isn't enough "real world"
experience with DNSSEC to have a final say about best common practices, but
it is a good guide.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rob Austein
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:41 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dnsop] WGLC on
> draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-03
>
>

.

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:18:41 -0500

> this draft going to the IESG.

I support the idea of sending this document to the IESG for evaluation.  I
don't know if BCP is the right status given how relatively little real
operational experience we have with this topic, but appropriate document
status is something the IESG can help determine.

-Scott-

.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:40:48 +0200 (EET)

> status is something the IESG can help determine.

Ack.  I have not reviewed the document, but it might be appropriate to 
go for Informational at this point, and revise it later with more 
DNSSEC experience for BCP.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:49:35 +0000

great draft. having read it, tried to put some of its recommedations
into practice, and would support the IESG moving this document forward
as an INFORMATIONAL RFC.  In my opinion, it is premature to presume that
there are "Best Current Practices" when this is so new.

--bill

.

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:02:19 +0100

>which we hope to submit to the IESG for consideration as a BCP

Hiya,

The document was intended as Informational.

 From the Introduction:

   At the
   time of writing, there exists very little experience with DNSSEC in
   production environments, this document should therefore explicitly
   not be seen as representing 'Best Current Practices'.

:-)

--Olaf
.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:43:51 -0500

>    not be seen as representing 'Best Current Practices'.

Chairs' mistake then.  I don't think we need to restart the last call,
so please just pretend that we had said "Informational" in the first
place.

Thanks for the correction.
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html