Re: [dnsext] Working group workflow (nsec3 in draft-sha256)

[Jelte Jansen <jelte@NLnetLabs.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roy Arends wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote on 12/09/2008 07:09:48 PM:
> 
>> But now, well after the WG is supposed to be done with the document,
>> we have a new round of objections that re-open a previously closed
>> discussion. 
> 
> Not so fast:
> 
> I asked for implied support of NSEC3 in october 2007, and the document 
> subsequently reflected this:
> 
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00599.html
> 
> "What I do like to mandate is support for the new keytypes implies support 
> for NSEC3, provided that NSEC3 is proposed standard by that time. That 
> would avoid allocating an alias for every keytype."
> 
> There has been no objection since then, and the document reflected this, 
> until recently. I _have_ reviewed the document in october 2007. I call 
> that early, not late.
> 

There was not much support either; Matt is the third (!) person I count (please
correct me if i'm wrong). This is probably my fault; I could have asked for more
explicit support on-list back when I made the original change to implied support.

During the last call, there were some objections to it. While most were merely
about the text, others were about the spirit. It appeared to me more objections
were raised to the chairs off-list (if so, chairs, please instruct people to
send such comments to the list, or come up with a better way to archive them).

So I asked the list to speak up about this issue, and there was a torrent of 2
whole responses (1 for, 1 against), until the revival of the thread two days ago.

Now i don't like sending or seeing '+1' messages. But we do apparently need those.

In my defense, I did ask for a second last call. But seeing as the first last
call just barely survived, i did not mind too much when this request wasn't granted.

We do have a real workflow problem.

Jelte

ps.

> ( Note that the document had expired from July 5th 2006 until December 10
> 2007 )
>

The initial draft dates from february 2006. So much for algorithm agility. Sigh.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkk/gGIACgkQ4nZCKsdOncXzrQCeOENCB1vBKZWmybdaxcX0UqtE
yzkAn1e+q9+UP1fZl6ghmEVhdxnY8N+a
=Pvyk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>