Fwd: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

[Marc Blanchet]

Lars,
 the drawback to unsync the two documents (RSSAC and IAB) is that the current text implied there were synched. While the IAB really wanted to proceed with the document, do we have any chance that RSSAC would publish his in the foreseable future? (we have a window between now and when drafting the new version to be published by the RFC editor). That way we can still accomplish the goal of synched documents.  Otherwise, I agree with the reviewer below that the text in the IAB document needs to be modified accordingly.

can we get RSSAC to get his doc out soon?

Marc.

Début du message réexpédié :

> De: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
> Objet: Rép : Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
> Date: 28 mai 2014 12:47:34 UTC−4
> À: Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com>
> Cc: IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf at ietf.org>
> 
> On May 28, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
>> You have asked a question in a manner that assumes a technical assessment can be made.  
> 
> Correct. You (the IAB) are asking the IETF to obsolete a BCP (which means it has the same requirements as a standards-track document). The BCP asserts some technical properties; the IETF should be able to determine whether or not the new technical properties are an appropriate replacement for the old ones.
> 
>> I do not think that is the situation.  Instead, I think the question is whether the IETF is the proper organization to write a BCP about protocol requirements for root servers and RSSAC is the right organization to write a document about operational requirements for root servers.  In short, this more of a political question than a technical one.  Back when RFC 2870 was written, the IETF (rightly or wrongly) included both requirement sets in the same document.
> 
> That seems fine, as long as the new document says that, which it does not. If the IETF is going to replace this BCP with one that has a smaller scope, it should say that up front and *not* refer to a document that we cannot yet read and may, in fact, have very different properties than the one in the references in this draft.
> 
> Current:
>   The operational requirements are defined in [RSSAC-001].  This
>   document defines the protocol requirements and some deployment
>   requirements.
> 
> Proposed:
>   This document only defines the protocol requirements and some
>   deployment requirements; the operational requirements that were
>   defined in RFC 2870 are removed. It is expected that ICANN's
>   RSSAC [RSSAC] will define the operational requirements.
> 
>   [RSSAC] DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee,
>           http://www.icann.org/en/groups/rssac
> 
> 
>>> From my perspective, IETF is the proper organization to write a BCP about protocol requirements.
> 
> Yes, definitely.
> 
>> RSSAC has been going through a restructuring process.  Assuming that a functional organization emerges from that process, RSSAC will be a fine organization to handle the operational requirements.
> 
> Yep. But that doesn't mean that this BCP should have a reference to a document we can't evaluate.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.liman.se/pipermail/iab2870bis/attachments/20150930/f7b2f334/attachment.html>