On 30Oct 2006, at 5:38 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
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.
Phillip,I think there is an excuse for not taking the time to do the comparison. To be able to understand the interoperability problems you either have to read the code (*) or set up a test-lab. Both are non-trivial time consuming exercises and even though this work is part of my day job, preemptive scheduling because of an IETF last call, just does not work.
I read the document and flagged the issue of possible interoperability problems, so did others (if only to make sure that the IESG is aware of these potential problems). This should be a queue for the document editor to step in and explain if there are issues and, if so, which. That could be a very trivial explanation.
And even if the technical specs are OK, there is still the issue of the IANA considerations.
--Olaf (*) You wrote:
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.
Personally I am not so much worried about the difference in documents, I am worried about the difference between draft-weiler and the implementation (_the_ implementation as I am not aware implementations other than in BIND) hence I wrote 'code' above.
--Olaf no hats. ----------------------------------------------------------- Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf