--On Monday, 30 October, 2006 05:27 +1100 Geoff Huston <gih@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf