DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-07-02
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2015-06-26
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT |
2015-06-17
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from AUTH |
2015-02-24
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2015-01-31
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-01-26
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-01-26
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-01-26
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-01-26
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2015-01-26
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-01-26
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-01-26
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-01-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2015-01-22
|
06 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2015-01-22
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I wish I'd had time to read this properly and ballot yes, but I didn't, sorry;-) This is however good and useful work. |
2015-01-22
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-01-22
|
06 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-01-22
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-01-21
|
06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-01-21
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Please move Appendix A into section 1.3 as it would be better to have all terms, symbols, and variables used in the draft … [Ballot comment] Please move Appendix A into section 1.3 as it would be better to have all terms, symbols, and variables used in the draft defined in the terminology section. Russ Housley noticed this and I agree with him in that it would be good to fix. In 1.4 should this include key sizes as well since they are not discussed? I see the explanation in section 5 and am just wondering if the procedures are the same when key properties change as opposed to expiration and revocation, which are both mentioned in the draft. The SecDir review found a few nits you should probably fix as well: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05318.html |
2015-01-21
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-01-21
|
06 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2015-01-20
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-01-09
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2015-01-05
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-01-03
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot has been issued |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG writeup for key-timing As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. … IESG writeup for key-timing As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) The RFC is being requested as Informational. This is indicated in the (title page, and the RFC discusses various methods of changing or 'rolling (over') the DNSSEC keys of a domain, and various effects they have. (2) Technical Summary: This document describes the issues surrounding the (timing of events when updating or 'rolling') the key in a DNSSEC-secured (zone. It presents timelines for the key rollover and explicitly identifies (the relationships between the various parameters affecting the process. Working Group Summary: This document was originally presented in 2012, and had been accepted and was in WGLC when it stalled, primarily due to a secondary document updating some of the steps in this document. The WG had no direction and it remained stalled until it was re-started, and the two documents were merged, and editorial flair was applied. Document Quality: The document went through a very editorial process and we feel it is of strong quality. Personnel: The Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski and the Area Director is Joel Jaggeli. (3) The Document Shepherd participated in regular conference calls with the (authors where editorial issues was addressed. Since the details of this draft (involves some mathematical formulas, there was a fear of not being completely (correct, so several independent efforts were made to verify the steps. anBriefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breath of (reviews. There were many detailed reviews of the document from several (sources, both in technical details, but also editorial concerns on (readability, etc. (5) This document, or any portion of this document need review from broader (perspective. (6) The Document Shepherd has no concerns with this document. There was a (very strong editorial process involved before reaching last call and many (issues around readability were addressed. (7) Each author has confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures needing to be (filed. (8) There are no IPR disclosures references or filed with this document. (9) The WG is very solid in consensus behind this document. There was broad (consensus to publish the document and its findings, as they are relevant to (the operations community at large. (10) No one has threatened an appeal or indicated any discontent. (11) There are no known nits that were found, either automated or manual (checks. (12) This document does not need any formal review from specific type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (14) There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for (advancement. (15) There are no downward normative references references in this document. (16) Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing (RFCs. (17) This document includes no requests of IANA, and no consideration is (needed. (18) No IANA registries will require Expert Review for this document. (19) No automated checks were performed to validate the document, as there was (no formal language used in the document. There were a few simple formulas (which were vetted by several different people. |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG writeup for key-timing As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. … IESG writeup for key-timing As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) The RFC is being requested as Informational. This is indicated in the title page, and the RFC discusses various methods of changing (or 'rolling over') the DNSSEC keys of a domain, and various effects they have. (2) Technical Summary: This document describes the issues surrounding the timing of events when updating (or 'rolling') the key in a DNSSEC-secured zone. It presents timelines for the key rollover and explicitly identifies the relationships between the various parameters affecting the process. Working Group Summary: This document was originally presented in 2012, and had been accepted and was in WGLC when it stalled, primarily due to a secondary document updating some of the steps in this document. The WG had no direction and it remained stalled until it was re-started, and the two documents were merged, and editorial flair was applied. Document Quality: The document went through a very editorial process and we feel it is of strong quality. Personnel: The Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski and the Area Director is Joel Jaggeli. (3) The Document Shepherd participated in regular conference calls with the authors where editorial issues was addressed. Since the details of this draft involves some mathematical formulas, there was a fear of not being completely correct, so several independent efforts were made to verify the steps. anBriefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breath of reviews. There were many detailed reviews of the document from several sources, both in technical details, but also editorial concerns on readability, etc. (5) This document, or any portion of this document need review from broader perspective. (6) The Document Shepherd has no concerns with this document. There was a very strong editorial process involved before reaching last call and many issues around readability were addressed. (7) Each author has confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures needing to be filed. (8) There are no IPR disclosures references or filed with this document. (9) The WG is very solid in consensus behind this document. There was broad consensus to publish the document and its findings, as they are relevant to the operations community at large. (10) No one has threatened an appeal or indicated any discontent. (11) There are no known nits that were found, either automated or manual checks. (12) This document does not need any formal review from specific type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (14) There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement. (15) There are no downward normative references references in this document. (16) Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) This document includes no requests of IANA, and no consideration is needed. (18) No IANA registries will require Expert Review for this document. (19) No automated checks were performed to validate the document, as there was no formal language used in the document. There were a few simple formulas which were vetted by several different people. |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Telechat date has been changed to 2015-01-22 from 2015-01-08 |
2014-12-31
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-12-18
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tina Tsou. |
2014-12-14
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Telechat date has been changed to 2015-01-08 from 2014-12-18 |
2014-12-08
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-12-01
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-12-18 |
2014-12-01
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-12-01
|
06 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-12-01
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2014-12-01
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2014-11-28
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2014-11-28
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2014-11-27
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2014-11-27
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2014-11-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-11-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes the issues surrounding the timing of events in the rolling of a key in a DNSSEC-secured zone. It presents timelines for the key rollover and explicitly identifies the relationships between the various parameters affecting the process. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-11-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-11-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-11-23
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call was requested |
2014-11-23
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-11-23
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-11-23
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-11-23
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-11-07
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-11-04
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | IESG writeup for key-timing As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. … IESG writeup for key-timing As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) The RFC is being requested as Informational. This is indicated in the title page, and the RFC discusses various methods of changing (or 'rolling over') the DNSSEC keys of a domain, and various effects they have. (2) Technical Summary: This document describes the issues surrounding the timing of events when updating (or 'rolling') the key in a DNSSEC-secured zone. It presents timelines for the key rollover and explicitly identifies the relationships between the various parameters affecting the process. Working Group Summary: This document was originally presented in 2012, and had been accepted and was in WGLC when it stalled, primarily due to a secondary document updating some of the steps in this document. The WG had no direction and it remained stalled until it was re-started, and the two documents were merged, and editorial flair was applied. Document Quality: The document went through a very editorial process and we feel it is of strong quality. Personnel: The Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski and the Area Director is Joel Jaggeli. (3) The Document Shepherd participated in regular conference calls with the authors where editorial issues was addressed. Since the details of this draft involves some mathematical formulas, there was a fear of not being completely correct, so several independent efforts were made to verify the steps. anBriefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breath of reviews. There were many detailed reviews of the document from several sources, both in technical details, but also editorial concerns on readability, etc. (5) This document, or any portion of this document need review from broader perspective. (6) The Document Shepherd has no concerns with this document. There was a very strong editorial process involved before reaching last call and many issues around readability were addressed. (7) Each author has confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures needing to be filed. (8) There are no IPR disclosures references or filed with this document. (9) The WG is very solid in consensus behind this document. There was broad consensus to publish the document and its findings, as they are relevant to the operations community at large. (10) No one has threatened an appeal or indicated any discontent. (11) There are no known nits that were found, either automated or manual checks. (12) This document does not need any formal review from specific type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (14) There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement. (15) There are no downward normative references references in this document. (16) Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) This document includes no requests of IANA, and no consideration is needed. (18) No IANA registries will require Expert Review for this document. (19) No automated checks were performed to validate the document, as there was no formal language used in the document. There were a few simple formulas which were vetted by several different people. |
2014-11-04
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | State Change Notice email list changed to draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing.all@tools.ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
2014-11-04
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | Responsible AD changed to Joel Jaeggli |
2014-11-04
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-11-04
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-11-04
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-11-04
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | Changed document writeup |
2014-10-27
|
06 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Stephen Morris | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-06.txt |
2014-09-17
|
05 | Stephen Morris | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-05.txt |
2014-07-04
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2014-07-04
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Tim Wicinski |
2014-07-04
|
04 | John Dickinson | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-04.txt |
2012-08-23
|
03 | Peter Koch | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2012-07-09
|
03 | Peter Koch | WGLC issed 2012-08-23 to last until 2012-09-14. |
2012-07-09
|
03 | Stephen Morris | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt |
2011-09-11
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-03-10
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-02.txt |
2010-10-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-01.txt |
2010-07-01
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-00.txt |