Subject: Conclusion WGLC white lies documents

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:06:14 +0200

Dear Colleagues

On Jul 28, 2005, at 20:00 we had a last call for the white lies  
documents
      http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/ 
msg01184.html

This concludes the last call.

In that mail I asked for specific guidance on two issues. The _only_  
feedback on this document that I can trace is a remark by Peter Koch  
that he would like to see the document proceed on the standard track.

Without having had any guidance from this group I think this is an  
appropriate way forward:

On the issue of having this document update 4034, 4035, so be it. I  
would like to ask the editors to add appropriate text that reflects  
what we paraphrased in the last mail on this topic.

> - RFC4034 Section 4.1.1 describes how the NSEC "next domain name"  
> field
>   contains the next owner name in the canonical ordering of the zone.
>   Again, Epsilon does something different.
>
> - RFC4035, Section 2.3, 3rd paragraph requires (with a 2119 MUST NOT)
>   that an NSEC RR not be the only RR at a given owner name.  When
>   Epsilon NSEC RRs are synthesised to cover a non-existing name, that
>   constraint is violated.  This should not require any changes to
>   deployed code, but it is a change in 2119 language.
>
>

Once that text is published we'll forward the documents, without  
another LC, to the IESG, to be published on the standards track.

- - --Olaf & Olafur
DNSEXT Co-hairs.

PS. Apologies for concluding this last call so long after its dead-line,

- -----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
We have employment opportunities, see the website.

--
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: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:42:01 +0200

Sam,

I have CC-ed namedroppers, since your confusion might be shared, I  
hope you do not mind.

On Sep 16, 2005, at 16:33 , Sam Weiler wrote:
>> On the issue of having this document update 4034, 4035, so be it.  
>> I would like to ask the editors to add appropriate text that  
>> reflects what we paraphrased in the last mail on this topic.
>>
>
> I'm confused.  I thought epsilon did, in fact, have the appropriate  
> text re: updating.  Can you be more specific?

Sorry, this is my error. Off course the text as it is now updates  
4034 and 4035.  We did not get consensus to remove the need to update  
4034/4035  (as paraphrased in the WGLC).  In other words there is no  
need to rev the doc.

> I think the p-s doc was supposed to be informational from the  
> beginning, not standards.
>

Well in the last call we actually proposed the p-s to go to  
experimental.

I interpreted the feedback during the WG meeting in Paris as a  
preference for both documents to go on standards track.

Your message made me reread the minutes and listen to the recorded  
archive.  It seems that his feedback is mostly towards the online- 
signing document.  So I think we are doing the right thing if we'll  
forward online-signing for standards track and p-s for experimental.

> (...)
> there are trivial edits to epsilon that we want to do,
> (...)
>  (We want the word "epsilon" to appear in the text, and maybe the  
> title, since that's how people refer to it.  and one or two trivial  
> text errors)

As for the minor edits you mentioned, we wait for version 01 to  
appear before pushing to the IESG. There does not seem to be a need  
for a new last call.

- --Olaf