I disagree. The ISC document makes it very clear that it is an implementation description, not a normative specification and that it is copyright ISC and not the IETF. Any casual resemblence the document might have to an RFC or draft is illusory. If someone was stating 'I have read the drafts and I have identified the following issue that will lead to incompatibility' the issue might be worth IESG time. When the statement is "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" it should go straight to the bit bucket. People complain about 'I haven't read the draft but...' comments in IETF meetings. At least there there is the excuse that there is a limited time to raise an issue that might just have occurred to you. On a mailing list there is really no excuse for not taking the time to do the comparison. The acknowledgements sections both cite the authors of the other document. I see no reason to assume that the groups have not been in communication. They state that this is the case. Since an individual submission is not a standard it would appear to be allowable for the documents to be inconsistent even if they were both submitted for publication as an RFC. Too many people are relying on the IESG to do too much. The Internet is rather more robust than people imagine. If someone wants to stop a draft they MUST be required to provide an objective, testable explanation of the objection. Networking specs describing changes to a twenty year old infrastructure designed as experimaental are always going to be complex and there will always be the possibility of unanswered questions. There might be a problem here, but it is rather more important for the IESG to protect their time by insisting that objectors put at least as much time into consider the issue as they are expected to. > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:43 PM > To: Geoff Huston; Bernard Aboba; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)' > to Informational RFC (draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv) > > > > --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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf