> Default action: if there is NO response to these questions > Opt-in document > will be removed from the working group. That is a curious choice of default action. OK I will state for the record yet again. Without OPT-IN there is no prospect of DNS-SEC being deployable in the large zones. OPT-IN thus meets a critical requirement for which no competeing solution has been proposed. The choices facing this group are therefore 1) Accept Opt-in 2) Abandon DNS-SEC The lack of technical objections in last call is more usually taken as an indication that there are no technical objections to the proposal. > Note: We are only asking the technical questions about > Opt-in, the political > question if we want to standardize this will be addressed if the > technical questions are affirmative. If you don't want to discuss the requirement then the only thing that is left to discuss is technical objections. So silence can only mean consent. > Q: Is the description in the document of Opt-In complete ? How on earth is this meant to get a positive response? No IETF specification has ever been "complete". The authors believe the draft to be complete or they would not have proposed it go into last call. This appears to me to be yet another attempt to legitimate fuzzy objections that dare not speak their name as in: 'I'm not happy but I think I'm too important to have to give reasons why'. 'we have discussed this draft in the context of the TIA project, objections were raised but they are classified'. 'This draft does not explain the consequences of 20% of microfleems being subjugdanate' A compelling requirement has been described. No technical objections were raised during last call. Therefore the draft should go forward. > Q: Does this document satisfy people as being implement able > and testable specification ? It is a heck of a lot more implementable that what we have at present. I repeat, either the .com issue is addressed or DNSSEC DIES NOW. > Q: Are there implementations of opt-in and have there been any tests ? Yes, see comments by Paul. > The chairs will consider any response received on the mailing list or > sent privately to BOTH chairs, by February 12'th. If someone has a technical objection they should be able to discuss it in public. The working group process is a public process. No cabals, no directorates, no veto for the chairs. As RFC 2026 states: No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. Phill
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature