Subject: Last call reminder:

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:17:17 -0500

We now have 5 documents in Last call, without any comments. 
Here is a list of the documents in last call and the deadline
for comments on each one. 
Remember it is Randy and my job to judge the consensus of the group but
to do so we need some feedback on each one of these documents. 

I would like to finish as many of these important documents before or at
Adelaide meeting.

Due March 8'th 2000:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-signing-auth-00.txt
and 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-simple-secure-update-
00.txt

Due March 14'th 2000. 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns-00.txt

Due March 20'th 2000. 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-sig-zero-00.txt
and
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-01.txt

        Olafur

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

---

From: John Gilmore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 20:31:05 -0800

> to do so we need some feedback on each one of these documents. 

I think the WG has successfully worn out just about everyone who cares,
by constant rewriting of standards that we haven't ever field-tested.
I certainly can't dedicate the time to keep up with all these paper
standards.

Please allow me to recommend that all of them be discarded or delayed
indefinitely, until we have some operational experience with the draft
standards that preceded them.

Now you have one comment for your last call.

	John

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 08:44:05 -0500

While there certainly is a problem with lack of energy and
participation in the WG, and with lack of deployment, I don't see
throwing away the current drafts or delaying going to RFC as a
solution.

In many cases the drafts are simplifications or clarification that
have been derived from implementation or attempted implementation.  To
just throw them out would leave the previous complex and/or unclear
RFCs as the only reference.  And going to RFC gives wider notice and
is considered by some as an important factor in favor of
implementation and deployment.

I'm not sure what the answer is.  Maybe we need some really
controversial drafts so as to get people's interest and energy levels
up higher and cause more comment... the most recent large spurt of
comments was on my .local draft.  Guess it's time to integrate those
comments and re-issue it :-)

Actaully, I don't think the lack of comments is quite as bad as it
seems.  In many cases the drafts have been commented on before and
those comments integrated or at least some comments were passed around
when the draft first came out, before the last call.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  John Gilmore <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
To:  Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
cc:  [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-reply-to:  <[email-masked]> 
Date:  Tue, 07 Mar 2000 20:31:05 -0800

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:29:53 -0500

>I certainly can't dedicate the time to keep up with all these paper

I half agree and half disagree with your message...

The last calls are not that effective.  Most of these documents have been
getting little review and little discussion on the list.  I think the
deadlines are too tight given that the start of the last call comes out of
the blue.

On the other hand, these are not just 'paper standards.'  Most, if not
all[1], are being implemented in BIND 9.  (I am unsure about what Microsoft
has implemented regarding GSSAPI TKEY.)  What is happening is the
pre-documentation of the protocols as they are being implemented.  Not just
in in the DNS[A-Z0-9]* WG, but throughout the IETF there is a effort to put
the paper before the code.  (IMHO, this is the ISO-ization process.)

The WG problem isn't the lack of implementation, but the lack of competing
implementations that foster in-depth discussions leading to improved words
on paper.

You are right that we do need operational experience.  I have been doing
all I can to make this come about, but I don't have resources.  Who does?
I'd like to know.

[1] I know TSIG is, I think SIG(0) and TKEY is, what are the other two docs
in last call?

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

"Trying is the first step to failure." - Homer Simpson
"No! Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." - Yoda
"It takes years of training to know when to do nothing" - Dogbert 1/21/00

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

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 17:29:47 +0100

We, the domein-registry in .nl, de-nic (.de) have some resources
allocated for doing some large scale dns-sec implementation testing
(based on bind9), together with nlnetlabs.nl and other parties. We
are actively setting op an workgroup etc. As soon as the details
are sorted out, we can give some more details.

	jaap

    [1] I know TSIG is, I think SIG(0) and TKEY is, what are the
    other two docs in last call?

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

    "Trying is the first step to failure." - Homer Simpson "No!
    Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." - Yoda "It takes
    years of training to know when to do nothing" - Dogbert 1/21/00

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