Hi Paul (Hoffman) -
Just a reminder that the correct response to a call for adoption is a
discussion not a set of votes. The fact that Paul W suggests that the
non-software case reduces to "always have backups" was helpful to me in
identifying the probable audience for this document as currently formed.
I don't believe that telling Paul to sit down and shut up (I'm
paraphrasing, but that's what it read like to me - especially since I
couldn't see the attack you were referring to) does anything to move the
discussion along in a helpful manner.
Later, Mike
On 2/20/2026 12:56, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Feb 20, 2026, at 09:38, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026, Paul Hoffman wrote:
A strong +1 for what Wes says.
Said another way: I'm against WG adoption of this draft if it is only about HSMs or
primarily focused on them, but in favor it if covers the typical use cases for DNSSEC
signers. As others have said, "how to deal with HSM private key loss" is a blog
post (that should talk about specific HSMs), not a long-lived RFC.
Isn't the software use case "always have recent backups" ? Is that worthy of a
draft?
Your use of the word "have" would be unhelpful for probably 90% of the readers.
(Also: you have already stated your opinion on the call for adoption; please
allow others to do so without attack.)
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
