Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-02

[Note]: '1/9/2006: Last discuss is cleared, waiting for WG okay of applicability statement, per e-mail from Olaf.  PROTO shepherd is Olafur Gudmundsson .  See ballot write-up for discussion of IETF LC issue. ' added by Margaret Wasserman

[Ballot discuss]
During the Last Call, there were several issues raised regarding the appropriate status of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-onling-signing-00.txt.  As Margaret's write-up notes, the chairs did not believe that the issues raised at Last Call should over-ride the previous working group consensus.  The suggestions made at Last Call do, however, represent a different view of the way forward with this set of proposals:  put draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing at Experimental, with a dependency of the -bis drafts, which would then doing any work needed to update the base specs.

My own reading of this set is that it would either make an appropriate Experiment, during which the group (or DNSOP) would determine the applicability of this approach, or would be an appropriate Proposed Standard with an applicability statement that cautioned against its immediate use where not required by a stringent privacy need (with the regulatory need being the obvious use case).  After discussion with Margaret, Sam, and others, I'd like to request that the WG conduct a short consensus call on the issue to confirm that they wish to go for Proposed Standard (or opt for Experimental as suggested by Roy, Ben, and Thierry).  If they wish to go for Proposed, I'd suggest including an applicability statement.  If they wish to go for Experimental, I do not think that would be necessary.

[Ballot comment]
I would have preferred that the online signing document talk about
alternative approaches to solving the problem particularly to the
extent that there is active work going on on these approaches.  However that's not a discuss.