--On Monday, 30 October, 2006 05:27 +1100 Geoff Huston
<gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
I haven't compared draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-01 with the ISC
tech note closely, but since the text is different it seems
likely that implementations based on one would likely differ
from those based on the other, from different interpretations
of the text if not from fundamental differences in approach."
Thanks for pointing this out. As a matter of practical
reality, a DNSSEC implementer will probably opt for
compatibility with BIND 9 without compelling reasons to do
otherwise. Therefore, I'd suggest that one of the following
actions needs to occur before publication of draft-weiler
would be advisable:
a. Review by the BIND 9 maintainers to determine whether
existing implementations are compatible with draft-weiler.
b. If incompatibilities are found, then agreement by the BIND
9 maintainers that they will make the changes necessary to
upgrade to draft-weiler.
or, more radically:
a. Review by the draft-weiler author(s) to determine whether
existing
implementations are compatible with draft-weiler.
b. If incompatibilities are found, then the author of
draft-weiler
to make the changes necessary in the draft to match the
running code.
(or have we all entered a state of blissful collective amnesia
about that annoying thing called "running code"?)
Sigh. At the risk of excessive optimism, might we assume that
the author of draft-weiler, the authors and parties responsible
for the relevant implementations, and the relevant ADs are all
adults or at least capable of simulating them for a short time?
If so, we might encourage them to review the work and
implementations (as both Geoff and Bernard have suggested) and
then sit down, with appropriate lubrication, identify
differences and the reasons for them, figure out what needs to
be adjusted, and do so.
I hope that, by this time, it should be clear to the IESG and
the other parties involved that this document should not move
forward until any differences with existing important
implementations are noted and either resolved or carefully
described and explained in the text. I would hope that we
don't need to specify exactly how to tune things further.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf