Subject: need to update opt-in to info

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:27:10 -0700

this message is a follow-up to the messages that summarized the
result of wg last call for opt-in. see

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg01007.html
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg01129.html

to execute the plan outlined in the message above, the chairs in
coordination with the area director have agreed on the following
actions:

1. create an opt-in-05 document updated in the following manner:

1.1 with the following paragraph at the beginning of introduction
    section

     This document archives a proposed protocol extension to
     DNSSEC [normative ref to 2535bis] which was reviewed in the
     IETF, but the IETF decided not to adopt this a part of the
     DNSsec standard.  Implementation of this specification is
     therefor not recommended.

1.2 add a normative reference to rfc2535bis, the records and
    protocol documents.

2. then the chairs will ask the area directors to ask the iesg to
   publish the document as informational

3. the iesg will forward the document to rfc editor, where it will
   wait for the rfc2535bis documents to be published.

so this message is a request to the document editors to apply the
changes above and submit the revised document to the
internet-drafts directory.  thank you.

randy & Olafur

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

---

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:42:07 -0400 (EDT)

One of the cited messages says:

>  o the ADs do have expressed concerns to the chairs about when it
>    gets published; after DS+2535bis would be best.  this doesn't
>    prevent folk from finishing the document now and it can queue
>    (in the wg or at the AD) on hold until DS+2535bis finishes.

Those concerns weren't shared with the list, and without them, I don't
see the need for a normative reference to the bis docs.  Normative on
DS, sure, but I don't see the need to wait for the whole rewrite to
complete.

-- Sam

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:21:02 +0200 (CEST)

> DS, sure, but I don't see the need to wait for the whole rewrite to

The concern is that, due to folks not being good a differentiating between
INFO and STANDARDs, that having an opt-in informational document appear
when RFC 2535 is known to be undeployable poses a larger risk that opt-in
be viewed as a fix to 2535. Having the 2535bis document set reduces this
risk.

Since the goal of this exercise is to document opt-in in the historical record
(something the IETF doesn't do well and something it makes sense to
improve) the added delay for opt-in becoming an RFC should be irrelevant.

  Erik

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:57:47 +0000

> Since the goal of this exercise is to document opt-in in the
> historical record (something the IETF doesn't do well and something it
> makes sense to improve) the added delay for opt-in becoming an RFC
> should be irrelevant.
> 
>   Erik

well, but, that's not the goal at all.  but i digress.

---

From: Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:37:41 -0400

> coordination with the area director have agreed on the following

Randy,

The plan outlined would move Opt-In to informational.  However, upon
re-reading the responses to both messages listed above, several people
suggesting moving Opt-In to experimental.  No one suggested
informational.

This decision to move to informational appears to have been reached
outside the WG.  The WG's opinion was not solicited nor was consensus
determined.

Could you please explain the process that led to this plan to move
Opt-In to informational?  Why can we not let the WG weigh in on this
topic?

I personally support Opt-In going to experimental.

Matt

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:14:45 +0000

> ...

while i second matt's questions as to the process which led to the 
"let's make opt-in informational" plan, i want to follow up on the
above "let's make it experimental instead" metaplan.

ed's silly-state analysis is germane, and i believe antecedent to,
any decision as to what non-standards-track status opt-in can have.