Subject: DNSEXT WGLC: DNSSEC Roadmap

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:36:20 -0500

DNSEXT WGLC: DNSSEC Road map

This document explains how the various working group documents related
to DNSSEC fit together and what updates what.

This WG last call ends March 29'th 2001.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-roadmap-02.txt

This draft is to be published as informational RFC, if you disagree with
that please state why in your response. 

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:02:08 -0500

The document refers to at least one expired draft (not the fault of the
Roadmap author) and to other progressing drafts.

As no RFC can refer to Internet Drafts, it would be hard to progress this
document to an RFC.  IMHO, this is a worthy document whose time has not
come - in its present scope.

>This WG last call ends March 29'th 2001.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: [email-masked]

Dilbert is an optimist.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:30:12 -0600

At 17.02 -0500 01-03-21, Edward Lewis wrote:
>As no RFC can refer to Internet Drafts

It can, if the reference is non-normative.

I would not suggest to have even non-normative references to "work in 
progress", but if you really need to, that is possible.

   paf

---

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:19:57 -0800

There is some precedence on this matter.  RFC 2411 (IP Security Document
Roadmap) places references for RFC in the "official" references section, and
references to Internet Drafts in the acknowledgements.

While I dislike referencing Inet Drafts, I thought that placing the
references in the acknowledgement and not the formal references was enough
to indicate that they are "work in progress".  Some of the drafts that are
mentioned are also in Last Call, and will hopefully be assigned an RFC
number before the roadmap progresses and then correctly referenced in the
roadmap.

Scott

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:00:15 -0500

>number before the roadmap progresses and then correctly referenced in the

Okay.  In that case, I'd recommend putting in "-nn.txt" instead of the
extension number.  This is what appears in some WG charters when a draft is
mentioned.

Dilbert is an optimist.