From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 1 16:28:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E1411E80B7; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:28:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341185292; bh=7MrTLYnDQOstHuNdGMMYz7nHAwqPECprIBkPUsxu4EE=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=OMNpET0pREYD8Xb3gvBG3BqDjV4svlt2uFTbyy0juz1ha2VDwPEoU19JsHyH+uJhn qAeuAlM9UD3H6ZXcpTKmn6G8Cz62UfD7TeMGNd9kDv+4ywHcbGBYBDNEMqRzqNmpFy o6vE4AkYfnnYbP3LlKGkZaLSDdH/jyci6oWDeWSc= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C10F21F8897 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6YbUWLt1S9l6 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f42.google.com (mail-yw0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D624421F8692 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhfq11 with SMTP id q11so4491597yhf.15 for ; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:28:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9YtvYYDZRJlLyn7DMTaqAveUg66+r5Wznb0LrPipgic=; b=mvcF80a4G9jXUjWVbze8q8npQ8euLn3t92Nz29jvsUPIFdPG/7ReJQdJLRkkgeFsij Z+4WGZJvcksC5YBXi/kvuOpU9lArzxtT4+fAahOJ5EMw4zGtn5UZwzFFQdWWf4LXavty TE+QmqgSvub2WBbx7gAWMQpAplzxBxMDYCa3HGeNNi+FykwSCKzboo0WpDChyTPcx0xB dds1lL0MG66RiGnHwYGn8/ZCUzAMh/3me7rYczqEiYAirzEhewRNFmm/W3VhQWXJnCfN OALL70Sg3zrPNa8fqhRMcrFajhaqNcLo9Qin+x2/8fJLG67AOeTbdqBzWobdkQazv72P I+kA== Received: by 10.50.194.200 with SMTP id hy8mr5848876igc.58.1341185291402; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:28:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:27:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 19:27:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Michael Sheldon Cc: "dnsext@ietf.org" , Olafur Gudmundsson Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Michael Sheldon wrote: > In section 3.1: > "There are currently five QTYPEs > assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR." > > I would consider changing "* (ALL)" to "* (ALL/ANY)" > > While officially type 255 is * ALL, just about every implementation I've > ever seen refers to it as ANY. If no one objects, I wouldn't mind making the above change. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > Michael Sheldon > Dev-DNS Services > GoDaddy.com > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance >> From: Olafur Gudmundsson >> Date: Mon, June 11, 2012 10:43 am >> To: "" >> >> >> Dear colleagues >> >> This message starts a 2 week WGLC for RFC6195bis ending at midnight UTZ >> June 28'th 2012. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02 >> >> This document addresses known flaws in the RFC6195 (see appendix A). >> >> Please review the document and post a note that you have reviewed the >> document we need a minimum of 5 reviewers. >> >> Olafur & Andrew >> _______________________________________________ >> dnsext mailing list >> dnsext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext > > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 2 07:22:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D591621F8690; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:22:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341238952; bh=EzsXML8E73E4qrvH0SU2TrGqkj89UWUy4/7mSx6no74=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=ul9+akvAvbXIek91S2elBoH9RDpjeqAhK+mKcrNdezOh5s599y2LIedqFd66koABm 1YydGykl79CeY6U1B3FwFzaJOjJfgMpaIJkxU14sVfnoGvr1D95mBAqLW8vUHw8bps I6t52DJ1WnQPVVGccEmXcclXecWr9kMZXFjSk4w4= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A7A21F8690 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:22:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-xjUIcWkTMT for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D89121F8636 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhp26 with SMTP id 26so5725164yhp.26 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=QXpeJsJBHlDhMaCWms7lOY20G9N9aCkCIjFN1qbzNZ4=; b=C3HceIr+2Ri6QnfXPpq42VhGZTyIV/YR5eoA6rZliXiBy5mWVeDD2vzed4YmZ8asxS lsJSNMjbum+2W5YGY0u7IrLKmjkcXEf7dD58hq5kQwPUnr5kX2gqOpkK9Qy+6o8OL2Sy wuo9jAoo1MBkKWZbx/ElngV9yCtaS43ykll5vPbNj2/TN0gw4J7KQbb8SuGh/gykPx5h q5ydaD47pm1ouRaChqMy65Z9Cre5k+umzbi8OY+A0GnSs6DS90/CZ8ZRiGye/z2aTQvP 6iqrGs6nzu4aNd0SgIzU+dlP4oERGH8DMm72GUlAXMaqwmB2/NyHYj63Ph2u346tpaAt uA1Q== Received: by 10.50.213.106 with SMTP id nr10mr5432505igc.58.1341238955086; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:22:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:22:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mark Andrews Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org [cc'ed to DNSEXT with permission] Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. Stuff in curly braces ("{ }") is stuff I've added. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > {existing draft:} > The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful > only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, > some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value > of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to > use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define > a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing > implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by a Standards > Action. > > {proposed:} > The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD[1], and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful > only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. Only > RD and CD are expected to be copied from the query to the response > however some DNS implementations copy all the query header as the > initial value of the response header. Thus, any attempt to > use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define > a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing > implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by a Standards > Action. > > [1] AD is expected to have seperate but related meanings in both the > query and response. OK. I don't have a problem with the proposed text except that I'd like to know where the expectation that AD has a meaning in queries comes from... > 2.2 OpCode Assignment > > Status is reserved in RFC 1035 but not behaviour is defined. OK. I can add "Although the Status OpCode is reserved in [RFC1035], its behavior has not been specified." > 2.3 RCODE Assignment > > NOTAUTH is also overloaded and you need to look at the TSIG > result code to work out which. If the TSIG result code > is zero or does not exist then it is not authoritative. > > "Not authoritative" [RFC 2136] > "Not authorised" [RFC 2845] OK. I can change the table entry to point to a note right after the RCODE table saying that. > RRTYPE assignments need to say something about the rdata format > no longer being subject to change. Its not for reserving a code > point as it will be coded into implementations. I'm not quite certain what you mean above. That the RDATA format approved as part of the RRTYPE assignment process can never be changed later? Seems reasonable that it can't be changed unilaterally. But I don't see why you shouldn't be able to change it by going through the process again. Maybe there is some field or value or flag or something that is just wrong or can't possibly work or whatever that wasn't spotted when the application was initially processed. Or maybe even for problems not that bad. Of course, you could always get another RRTYPE but that has problems as well, with having to query both, etc. There are various engineering trade offs so I don't think a flat prohibition on any changes, if that is what you are saying, is reasonable. Question B.1 on the RRTYPE Application temple already asks if it is a new assignment or a modification of a previously assigned RRTYPE. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 2 08:01:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E5321F86BA; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:01:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341241284; bh=1Uus60079GWmhI8C0/4sw6Y7pBmM4Tg0Bjc6vpSRPqw=; h=From:To:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Sender; b=fiC6TdjqSSopCEzUR0rWhXP9OS4OOtsd4Wh77Gy6fZ9acihapym6A6kHUwfqhMjF6 cVORMGcNfaXrggt/1RHFozkw9PMpv0xkOXKweYqN+wyxAlzzCK8ULtQAW/x+nX4thx fv/kDPrj1I13Ty2ltUdaFnSIIDUFjNvMDGSkmW4U= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C5821F86B7 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6apqIfqamth6 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71E121F869E for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:01:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: MIME-Version; b=ex1goMAEl1s27LXE9Dk8c9vgvzvhHM7dMZTwXkI0HVZQRmGixNe7jB0o aPLMYIzxAQME5bsl2pvi/Ycx/qSyknLWrAlO7FPwFtnn6cza3hMCzGr9E 265D2v26yCHkE+k; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1341241286; x=1372777286; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[dnsext]=20=20WGLC:=20RFC6195bis=20IANA =20guidance|Date:=20Mon,=202=20Jul=202012=2015:01:23=20+0 000|Message-ID:=20|To:=20Donald=20Eastlake=20|CC:=20IETF=20DNSEXT=20WG=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|In-Reply-To:=20 |References:=20<20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b27466 2bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>=0D=0A=20< CAF4+nEGbZavii4p_km2kRik-5B2RB19wJ2TFZJ-tSbX-x=3DNh6A@mai l.gmail.com>=0D=0A=20; bh=J0NhO0R37ynF8OHnjbWg+tDOEXIADC8hvy/dSxO7yPk=; b=CEiS22V4D4Be9BuimBupqqxWBo7lKrB3gfoQ1WN7ldhapo1wGSOT2c5r a2fUEksDRqZWxd0epJeQNL6WJYOQ2ozR5wz/ddkBYsS1cQIRiiOQkkNM3 IZXypz2trvcQ+NR; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,512,1336345200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33926964" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2012 16:01:25 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:01:24 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: Donald Eastlake Thread-Topic: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance Thread-Index: AQHNWF4s3xJg3Qoey0ugyI5K8sEGMZcWBZeA Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2924073628056491179==" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org --===============2924073628056491179== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_80D10950-0301-47A2-B1B1-F309ED6D7600"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_80D10950-0301-47A2-B1B1-F309ED6D7600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2 Jul 2012, at 15:22, Donald Eastlake wrote: > OK. I don't have a problem with the proposed text except that I'd like > to know where the expectation that AD has a meaning in queries comes > from... It's in dnssec-bis-updates, and implemented in BIND at least a couple of = years ago (as far as I can remember). Ray --Apple-Mail=_80D10950-0301-47A2-B1B1-F309ED6D7600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk/xt8MACgkQ+cr96znPxN6yhwCdEL39priKU/6b01MKxGsIDynk 4HwAniztcACqSKezAQ+Oryjjr3cc2WrG =jo+J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_80D10950-0301-47A2-B1B1-F309ED6D7600-- --===============2924073628056491179== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext --===============2924073628056491179==-- From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 2 08:09:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4395221F861E; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:09:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341241745; bh=T/ocjIK1Qd2ErdfLzEX4TUi1XbFSFpmGcfapOzjwKN8=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=xga3taYZnKJ1j9Wy3F1fh75K0nWkkSVa3aw2VijEdTE034KShZyXuIkZS55QybZw0 V5tn5cfqFlGYvmNWjTMYChzrkSZuzeVOA/8lCuVECpFX70L0gIZTTcf8gSXY7tTT4w oUuTZGPCWmsBx/lCBmlsOnNWK90wH4nt0Y6YJoO4= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16AE21F8698 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:09:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hikD4SCEqFVz for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB3221F85AA for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so4658892yen.31 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:09:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=npbX+5MgxeC90rF2U73m6Xxcb6172QbACCrdukQdlZA=; b=YpzWFldXCSAxm9ypzhafWXnXBYAoNl4yACiPqMLTJEKpYVC9KqDJjUZNDAZv+rMAQQ /KYhFl6PSoOHPqHW8GurNCi6SsnjDUAJU1Y+BPGh5r58isYdcUGxYM/g+WGOZ7RfX8pa 3UHT3BxT/HHWA4TvknlRDkxLOPFeVmacOVJTWw+sC71zCvU9wfVH671kv6Roxag04R4c 7AEluFdyNNUh8tv5zwxTv69gvinQ/E+jXrDcnvwwiTge9865+wxQqYyUIy3mSWKQiXBc 0x0AZVsnyaWgcqk18KtMZ806Y4xiiAPXsTwy8pb/Xm+1BYhTcFerZtMzvpjIxbAA+AVy Xugw== Received: by 10.50.196.232 with SMTP id ip8mr7651121igc.50.1341241746984; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:08:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:08:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ray Bellis Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org OK, I'll add appropriate text and a reference to that RFC-to-be. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > On 2 Jul 2012, at 15:22, Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> OK. I don't have a problem with the proposed text except that I'd like >> to know where the expectation that AD has a meaning in queries comes >> from... > > It's in dnssec-bis-updates, and implemented in BIND at least a couple of years ago (as far as I can remember). > > Ray > > _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 2 19:18:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6745011E810C; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:18:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341281927; bh=gH2qe7+2c2PnTKMPXh/tDweyjankVycVT9qF5C+2qFw=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Message-ID:Date:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Ypp2MyxPNHqbBy9xRWdSwKQe8caDX5h6zCll6BdR9OrmpME8S826C7tsoQFB9SjPt kk0hEvI8H/CrAXH6KyCYpPdk4v7X2V6lv0W8hOqLTlKZHMET3ngVcLwkh64uwrjRO8 QAeFXCOkQvadF/77pOIR9yCTfP98lvutxL7cfc+Q= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0746121F8565; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:18:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IrJqAMDhUAgs; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC63621F850F; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:18:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120703021834.802.77326.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:18:34 -0700 Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Author(s) : Donald E. Eastlake Filename : draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2012-07-02 Abstract: This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930, and 3597. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 2 19:28:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E0A21F8508; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:28:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341282483; bh=F02tWFkZmWknpoeCdvHls9cXjcEBJZk3Xp+gbuxD3nE=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=wMQLRI4sAOhZoV8MRNKuo64WJFxvKWkoWGaIuhg9TayWuZc5Ow9LXhbiCCJ8U+wJf H7npRugqSwdX8gl8rJjkynS/4X/ke0zIFyBdx0x0WVG/fTVGh8a6K+BW01alsEnF0F Us5ei4wpPYk4qdxacdNp2sWzKWaPLcZgMZbz6MwI= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC45521F84FF for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:28:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7eAUqzlH2Jky for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F2E21F84F3 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so5295601ggn.31 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:28:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=fYxOubEBFZLu8KYxeTy9dF4uEuUDKaVNlV8+2ZDc7ig=; b=rOACWtu8nFSfwoguPPFrXiM1JogUlsVTnFjzvxGFWybdbUoXnT2Gtv3xP0fpC0yK7P nXZD+MsOvXrbMVeEdPgk/f+Jr4FBh1d0ZQgsywCitL8rMS4NREcrWcOB7kkTYGXo61/8 ZyrrVGwIzl+W4xp+oFJAZkSOE4AA8SzuiWqzB/fF5JNpBhOTJ+5HBw4MTz5ue8/u3xNz uJFpRN8PmKomOkO/pGI+5s8W7RleZn3lDN135VgGYNPal5J1w35aaJYMYfqyao2wf0AS +xvRcDLWUn4A3eu6W5eYoluQGCQcqy8Mv6a7bJ4quRxtTImLh17qp50b3AE64hE8T7y8 j1qA== Received: by 10.42.89.72 with SMTP id f8mr7563517icm.33.1341282487514; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:28:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:27:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120703021834.802.77326.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120703021834.802.77326.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:27:47 -0400 Message-ID: To: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I have attempted to incorporate the comment resolutions so far. Please tell me if you think I've messed up as I can back out or modify changes. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:18 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations > Author(s) : Donald E. Eastlake > Filename : draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2012-07-02 > > Abstract: > This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) > parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name > System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error > codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record > subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930, > and 3597. > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03 > > A diff from previous version is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 3 07:14:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5280521F8823; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:14:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341324846; bh=gf6cqosfA74lOIgm+g2yw8+dQYZhNXZqoF/AmT2AEe4=; h=To:From:References:In-reply-to:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=kEnllbNKfYSXdeNpicq1NhGyCZjZ04r5WEMD+2PcGBZFYjYsuxn3MGxzinn43t7KE HaP2sO281cCfpB8wVOKWAl+6SDsf1j4BlXEhe0G++0WXEz8oSI/xBa+jL54iisvCpr IO14kHHorRUl4VZw/Cqu6Oi81dRMi2BnEMNGmnAk= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC87621F8823 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.883 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.883 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.716, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xf6X3xZxIBC9 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C68421F8754 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 788705F984C; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:13:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (CPE-124-177-138-97.lns3.woo.bigpond.net.au [124.177.138.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CCC5216C33; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:13:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D4D222DC10; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:13:31 +1000 (EST) To: Donald Eastlake From: Mark Andrews References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:22:14 -0400." Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:13:31 +1000 Message-Id: <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org In message , Donald Ea stlake writes: > [cc'ed to DNSEXT with permission] > > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the comments. Stuff in curly braces ("{ }") is stuff I've added. > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > {existing draft:} > > The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful > > only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, > > some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value > > of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to > > use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define > > a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing > > implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by a Standards > > Action. > > > > {proposed:} > > The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD[1], and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful > > only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. Only > > RD and CD are expected to be copied from the query to the response > > however some DNS implementations copy all the query header as the > > initial value of the response header. Thus, any attempt to > > use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define > > a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing > > implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by a Standards > > Action. > > > > [1] AD is expected to have seperate but related meanings in both the > > query and response. > > OK. I don't have a problem with the proposed text except that I'd like > to know where the expectation that AD has a meaning in queries comes > from... > > > 2.2 OpCode Assignment > > > > Status is reserved in RFC 1035 but not behaviour is defined. > > OK. I can add "Although the Status OpCode is reserved in [RFC1035], > its behavior has not been specified." > > > 2.3 RCODE Assignment > > > > NOTAUTH is also overloaded and you need to look at the TSIG > > result code to work out which. If the TSIG result code > > is zero or does not exist then it is not authoritative. > > > > "Not authoritative" [RFC 2136] > > "Not authorised" [RFC 2845] > > OK. I can change the table entry to point to a note right after the > RCODE table saying that. > > > RRTYPE assignments need to say something about the rdata format > > no longer being subject to change. Its not for reserving a code > > point as it will be coded into implementations. DANE thought that they had a code point that they could change the internal structure about at will by going through the allocation process. They needed to be disavowed of this notion. This should not happen again. > I'm not quite certain what you mean above. That the RDATA format > approved as part of the RRTYPE assignment process can never be changed > later? Seems reasonable that it can't be changed unilaterally. But I > don't see why you shouldn't be able to change it by going through the > process again. Because once you have code in the field that knows the internal structure of a RR changing that structure breaks those implementations that have implemented the RR. > Maybe there is some field or value or flag or something > that is just wrong or can't possibly work or whatever that wasn't > spotted when the application was initially processed. Or maybe even > for problems not that bad. Of course, you could always get another > RRTYPE but that has problems as well, with having to query both, etc. > There are various engineering trade offs so I don't think a flat > prohibition on any changes, if that is what you are saying, is > reasonable. Question B.1 on the RRTYPE Application temple already asks > if it is a new assignment or a modification of a previously assigned > RRTYPE. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > > > -- > > Mark Andrews, ISC > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 3 07:45:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE23C21F879B; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341326754; bh=xn9ukIvUQPSQGjhsjsP4pcrB1aFrKykgmEquhV0ZOfw=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Syh4W0DKkAAwwylSxbDpkuL/fz284+iQ0/9HJoPeGbi3GbT35Qnt+jTVLfiKaxzvS IN49lfeod+Fa9W9Cul6McJWA+yYphkU5QK4dmyemo4K4UXaOrrtUu5aVIwvv+pXvso mRgUhVXSTjdRtjUpTOIE0kXxwbm3asIPr7JjCnNA= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8CF321F8458 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:45:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6UvF7lqAOyJ for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA8821F87A2 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q63EjnPS034979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:45:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:45:50 -0700 Message-Id: <6AB4DF76-54EE-49A6-8F3E-BF1FA7782711@vpnc.org> References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Mark Andrews X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> RRTYPE assignments need to say something about the rdata format >>> no longer being subject to change. Its not for reserving a code >>> point as it will be coded into implementations. > > DANE thought that they had a code point that they could change the > internal structure about at will by going through the allocation > process. They needed to be disavowed of this notion. This should > not happen again. Mark's sneering is one way to look at it. Another is that, with an RRtype in a mature draft that labelled as TBD, implementers will just pick one and then eventually squat on it, screwing up both the registry and implementations. Standards-track protocols can be changed all the way through IESG review. Those changes could in fact change the internal structure of the data covered in an RRtype. This leaves exactly two choices: - Force Internet-Drafts to keep their RRtype as TBD all the way until the IESG passes the Internet-Draft to the RFC Editor - Allow WGs and document authors to request RRtype assignment earlier in the process and know that there might be a change based on technical review of the document Pick one. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 3 08:05:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D5B21F8848; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341327931; bh=fY8DNpQ4HlLpQWQhQDOvgRGfgJfIhDyVauYS/OKX3Vs=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Y991zuzUFwQ47Xp6TgLklwCub3ulmLjUF8k3moL5MRV62Ykr5Ae4zv9A/AN8musNB AJ3shcqCttprZczkP0WzwxcmkBibKGSaK20nJ4mNUG/yzaJj8AiNuJEvuhHV5FD790 GCP4qYCoW8ovxsD+VPEjUYn870DK7DfSI5Kb1ajQ= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875DA21F86DE for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5DictPgTCWcr for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E859221F8848 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE762C4003; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Received: from rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (maihub.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3OAzDaAx9gtP; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gala.icir.org (gala [192.150.187.49]) (Authenticated sender: nweaver) by rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA28A2C4002; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Nicholas Weaver In-Reply-To: <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:05:36 -0700 Message-Id: <09F9497E-099B-4880-8E17-55A63633D775@icsi.berkeley.edu> References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Mark Andrews X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> I'm not quite certain what you mean above. That the RDATA format >> approved as part of the RRTYPE assignment process can never be changed >> later? Seems reasonable that it can't be changed unilaterally. But I >> don't see why you shouldn't be able to change it by going through the >> process again. > > Because once you have code in the field that knows the internal > structure of a RR changing that structure breaks those implementations > that have implemented the RR. So by this logic, why not just advise every future RTYPE requests include, as the first byte, a version number field, allowing all future RTYPE requests to enable updates without needing to register a new RTYPE? And DANE can get this already: Any changes to the certificate associate data should have a new usage number, and usage number 255 means that the first octet of the otherwise opaque certificate association data is the extended usage type. Voila, problem solved. _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 3 08:32:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B623D11E8152; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:32:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341329529; bh=5z35hVt233ZkT812tjiOEE7Bt20dHezDOGJzmhK2IOI=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=uacxWPxbKiGBAcqAppAkE+TkHeydQKuDpcrLU5cYnz9ePXDHv73gebUrwm+PFdfxr 5l9jjSStZHThZcIZnxEuLCWJkRASz1A7SP7g8m1TTLOwEnJVDNxHM5BvbbAvdQZBdU 8Lhnj7h9riUarKJq3RvzBmLzzUNNQXpulV/mmlbM= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7223B11E8152 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KHPKly3YRxVP for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB1411E8151 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so4742100vbb.31 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=7G4OQZNCdOHeRWawm3O0vFiSsCm0UKbCjE46dm+0Hgg=; b=imir5cssYWewFmtEVxG2jUhZNtVBKbpybcYR2tqXKDRbteS9QSFYkT7SCZSQXYXphw Nd2UMR0IoteMLAhi1E1rq3sxKplcWXHJ6nwI0OJ5GLtkwzBNVX4Z7wbKsDzil1ZPmgVH Jfnt4v6fWLWGzHoVWroXsZmaxvyWSs2m7Ac4vdKGsPJ6Rt/ISRSShgl+v6nOlnusU3kg rMiBAij0JPVX1QlyQrzO7Qvrad8DSuORQTbi4nqF547IiUlJfQqZHW0xkQ0ZEvArJS6u QL7ExFZ5pojkasuMC2vNhOWizctLowcF9idRatTG+LG15pEC9pGyN2Bp3i+iT9vASseB GhbA== Received: by 10.42.89.72 with SMTP id f8mr9012037icm.33.1341329531833; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:32:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:31:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6AB4DF76-54EE-49A6-8F3E-BF1FA7782711@vpnc.org> References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> <6AB4DF76-54EE-49A6-8F3E-BF1FA7782711@vpnc.org> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:31:51 -0400 Message-ID: To: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > >>>> RRTYPE assignments need to say something about the rdata format >>>> no longer being subject to change. Its not for reserving a code >>>> point as it will be coded into implementations. >> >> DANE thought that they had a code point that they could change the >> internal structure about at will by going through the allocation >> process. They needed to be disavowed of this notion. This should >> not happen again. > > Mark's sneering is one way to look at it. Another is that, with an RRtype in a mature draft that labelled as TBD, implementers will just pick one and then eventually squat on it, screwing up both the registry and implementations. > > Standards-track protocols can be changed all the way through IESG review. Those changes could in fact change the internal structure of the data covered in an RRtype. This leaves exactly two choices: > > - Force Internet-Drafts to keep their RRtype as TBD all the way until the IESG passes the Internet-Draft to the RFC Editor But then the IESG can pull a draft back for the RFC Editor queue and change it. Or, after it issues as an RFC, they can cause it to be obsoleted by a revised RFC. Barring another Kobe revolution or the like, the locus of power in the IETF is the IESG. Anyone who believes some IANA Considerations in an RFC for an IETF parameter are more powerful than the IESG is a fooling themselves. However, notwithstanding that, the IANA Considerations should be something reasonable that has WG consensus. > - Allow WGs and document authors to request RRtype assignment earlier in the process and know that there might be a change based on technical review of the document To avoid squatting and the like and consistent with the idea of making it generally easier to get an RRTYPE code point, I think this is the way to go. There is already provision in the application template to indicate whether you are submitted for a new RRTYPE or the modification of an existing RRTYPE. I think about the best we can do is to add some language like: "An RRTYPE Allocation Template, indicating that it is for the modification of an RRTYPE, MUST be submitted when any material change is made to an existing RRTYPE specification. This includes any changes that occur in the processing of an internet-draft after initial RRTYPE allocation and before RFC publication." > Pick one. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 5 07:55:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8049E21F8744; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:55:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341500147; bh=+hSMkyyfm21MsmpHs8RO4nozOGEQEN7nL0mgeOsgrVs=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=e4dQYWo7CBDF/Jg0iwQC3qf+NFBxr1ytQV7qoghS4Gc8APumG8UmmkFqmDis+6KvI UJXLB84JciU8ruotNHdh0maOR5GZpsTVr5VpB0qexFzXdd56dYYlTJrdPVwI0qknLy UpBdu+BoD/gzss/mQiiUeqwRVP6VePMjT1bMLTxc= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1C221F86E4 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aFFXPNQcF425 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C91321F8734 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q65EtogD074592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:55:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:55:50 -0700 Message-Id: References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> To: DNSEXT Working Group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > This message starts a 2 week WGLC for RFC6195bis ending at midnight UTZ June 28'th 2012. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02 > > This document addresses known flaws in the RFC6195 (see appendix A). > > Please review the document and post a note that you have reviewed the document we need a minimum of 5 reviewers. I apologize for getting to this so late, but I also note that I might be just the fifth reviewer... The document is mostly fine. However, I have one major issue with it: it's not clear what IANA is supposed to do with it. There is a *lot* of text in this document that is repetition of the RFCs, as well as some important historical notes that are not currently in RFCs or in the IANA registry. When this document is finished, is IANA supposed to change each sub-registry to include the text from the relevant section of this RFC? If not, why is that text in this "IANA Considerations" document? I can see a few ways forward here: a) Explicitly tell IANA what additional material from this document should go in each sub-registry b) Tell IANA to put at the top of the registry something like "In order to understand this registry, you need to understand the underlying RFCs and the history of the registries. In order to do that, you should read BCP XXX" with a link to this document My preference is the latter, but people might want the former to make it harder for readers of the registry to miss the relevant stuff. There might be other ideas as well. Two other issues that should be clarified: - Can anyone subscribe to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list to see the applications come in? It is *not* listed on the page at . - At the end of 2.2, what does "as modified by [RFC4020]" mean? Is is supposed to be "as described in [RFC4020]"? --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 5 11:57:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5561A11E80BA; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:57:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341514635; bh=l2N0TrtWwa61F4+TN5hsnT6gC55f2CZWYwhm2TOpJls=; h=Mime-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Date:To:From:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Sender; b=pVIGiy+DJjPyxBZ5RMoxkZ3Tkb9VV8EtpT2BJtoDeEm703+BOei41sBiW1GqOwpKQ zUkGLu0TtrEBrE9vPFW2qj89wE7kcNHw76MxzaLKn+g0TvU4WO5j+CkYcc4SQaNr77 iZzGvp49aJ9jFl+/xTIrN67CUZUYYxOOMrd0YwD0= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591A511E80BA for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:57:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B8VdJvYOpw0n for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921B721F86EA for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jeng-lt61.cis.neustar.com (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q65IvL17013967; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:57:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz) Received: from [192.168.128.170] by jeng-lt61.cis.neustar.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:57:25 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by jeng-lt61.cis.neustar.com on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:57:25 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1340433313.43178.YahooMailClassic@web161701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <21DEB429-D133-4C34-BFA8-F057E50977A8@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:57:17 -0400 To: DNSEXT Working Group From: Edward Lewis X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.20.30.4 Cc: ed.lewis@neustar.biz Subject: [dnsext] "knowing A root key" was Re: draft-diao-aip-dns X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9083677028274434611==" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org --===============9083677028274434611== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-870607851==_ma============" --============_-870607851==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 8:32 -0700 6/29/12, Nicholas Weaver wrote: >... DNSSEC, in practice, relies on knowing A root key. Not really. The set of trust anchors a validator use is a local policy consideration. RFC 4035 4.4. Configured Trust Anchors A security-aware resolver MUST be capable of being configured with at least one trusted public key or DS RR and SHOULD be capable of being configured with multiple trusted public keys or DS RRs... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars! --============_-870607851==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" "knowing A root key" was Re: [dnsext] draft-diao-aip-dns
At 8:32 -0700 6/29/12, Nicholas Weaver wrote:

>... DNSSEC, in practice, relies on knowing A root key.

Not really.  The set of trust anchors a validator use is a local policy consideration.

RFC 4035

4.4.  Configured Trust Anchors

   A security-aware resolver MUST be capable of being configured with at
   least one trusted public key or DS RR and SHOULD be capable of being
   configured with multiple trusted public keys or DS RRs...

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
--============_-870607851==_ma============-- --===============9083677028274434611== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext --===============9083677028274434611==-- From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 5 15:06:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4CF11E80AA; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:06:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341525974; bh=6I0tHnPSB6mI8u/19hYnxhObcUUs4cbeK3TSs6A8bW4=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=oTLNL6pvWB44dgvuTPTuGfd2ab//qH+xKWsu2/6rl/oigRg3xMrf0gSFmhNr03akm Qo7R63gx8Hz5zw/CM01qTfjIN9J2YS8xyM1VErUp3+kWIU3tQ0EY5OvrK92PUmVlX/ bIimG2DjrtBI1vl1NNEKUwlRMYheS5USEQ1egO1Y= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D06711E80AA for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qb8R-KataMXL for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA5E21F85F3 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so6313840vbb.31 for ; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=UiNC3FHY5B+Y7K5O1Cz6j4DKmv32qIz+6wEl2xOOm6Q=; b=csznDYGeegLHveAkP46IgZ80Dp0fGvj+5bHV6HhtBDhxgfhu/c8QxrFlHM2zN6G/qO CVSACC+RGauTtxfof/cQTIz4NQiAv2BFg8GMYvEc+uxLzy8cp7JJ8NgAC2AMR0GvHVri xuFUV8uhKmoS0EQslKEAwXPg3sLxH/oK2tmCe6o/Eq6eDGTxWYC6F+0UbntgkKVH+Fcz 5GfLMRltUikfeejdJ07agb7WeAbGzTy3TFVDrgwAJcPdkoRqgq4p9qR0uHegGBbehJAu JHZp4gUeeAdeCGanZOBbXaTjwp/SmU5Aels5JazN1T+gOa+5j5BtkhqC7QL3aN3wcubw XLrg== Received: by 10.220.219.137 with SMTP id hu9mr11744046vcb.4.1341525985829; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.157.162 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:06:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> From: Dick Franks Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:06:05 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IRpkDK9p-E0ozxZ__tw_eJN1IDY Message-ID: To: Donald Eastlake Cc: dnsext@ietf.org, =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24=?= Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Donald, My apologies for late response. On 22 June 2012 19:10, Donald Eastlake wrote: ... >> [3.1 paragraph 4] >> and [3.2 paragraph 4] >> >> Regexes: >> >> [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] >> >> (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*) >> >> could be simplified to: >> >> [A-Z][A-Z0-9]* >> >> (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]* > > That's not simplification, that's change. A simplification of the underlying production rule for RRTYPE mnemonics, which inevitably flows through to the regex. > I believe that internal hyphens should be allowed within RRTYPE and > CLASS mnemonics. We do not know what future mnemonics or sets of > mnemonics will be required. Better to remain more flexible here. There appears to be no real-world requirement to do so. The justification for flexibility would best be debated if/when some genuine need arises. The collective decision of a multitude of worthy authors, over a span of more than 25 years, has been to treat RRTYPE mnemonics as simple Algol/Fortran style identifiers, even when some clearly had the opportunity to do otherwise. The regex should be tightened to make explicit a de facto standard observed by prominent members of the IETF engineering community. The unmodified regex has the unintended and undesirable consequence that it allows the IANA tail to wag the IETF dog. > I have no problem with making the Regex 2 exclusion slightly stronger > so going with your changed Regex 2 is fine with me. + --Dick _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 5 15:36:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EB611E80C4; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:36:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341527813; bh=Jx90sWUZFJwCcUzuxlAkcYufGyfh6QT1Y39lnyQxSRA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Rmc98Z9+GwYTF1rGRdCJ+EnVzJP3+HLd8RjAkD3Lkztkd2fSEu6V7LF23tWuhJWc6 YYM86JOL8X29FmuD/o9ZTXFn32Admor4YtqWNtafDonFQoCoco6kAYGmmWeOmcWUQ0 Hjf+Yc8h4OhYozK7B9ML/O+mZyFsvTSAdSNQRqR0= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D87411E80C4 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJaEMVAWNgEb for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4F111E80BD for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so15740552obb.31 for ; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6iTMs00zmuQBvaCoS4dSy9t4irJhQlVPP0NxPhFU8/o=; b=0elwwUDvN4zPNDQxBCciuZAZYagjuJaqZzYEfdsvwXs/0cMcHNHLSZZj71exjRLd2/ 6aUkWImH7QYRWTcuWh51wsqpxbh1ea8L+jHW1ZTeaxGbqJmyw5BxS+pFMIiinNfN9o6E dPvEQvmFqxsNNjPRXMvKrAWozLJhaQTB7G+Geq6LGSk83PGxIOB4O35FzCvpTx8idSgD Jei3/AG4flf1Hpb6LM7CkK+Nf1EwTL+/xtZCI2xKse6004N6lMwkmmtXKI9siG8SVWtQ qi6Qg4tTb284b1lsceDc3JT9UFS9ibplot3VfDESNmMV8MDLUWOGkd5suQyVNIp0rebX W8jw== Received: by 10.182.231.6 with SMTP id tc6mr23213585obc.63.1341527824562; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.70.137 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:36:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:36:44 -0400 Message-ID: To: Paul Hoffman Cc: DNSEXT Working Group Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Paul, On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > >> This message starts a 2 week WGLC for RFC6195bis ending at midnight UTZ June 28'th 2012. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02 >> >> This document addresses known flaws in the RFC6195 (see appendix A). >> >> Please review the document and post a note that you have reviewed the document we need a minimum of 5 reviewers. > > I apologize for getting to this so late, but I also note that I might be just the fifth reviewer... The document is mostly fine. > > However, I have one major issue with it: it's not clear what IANA is supposed to do with it. There is a *lot* of text in this document that is repetition of the RFCs, as well as some important historical notes that are not currently in RFCs or in the IANA registry. When this document is finished, is IANA supposed to change each sub-registry to include the text from the relevant section of this RFC? If not, why is that text in this "IANA Considerations" document? I can see a few ways forward here: > > a) Explicitly tell IANA what additional material from this document should go in each sub-registry > > b) Tell IANA to put at the top of the registry something like "In order to understand this registry, you need to understand the underlying RFCs and the history of the registries. In order to do that, you should read BCP XXX" with a link to this document > > My preference is the latter, but people might want the former to make it harder for readers of the registry to miss the relevant stuff. There might be other ideas as well. I also favor the latter. > Two other issues that should be clarified: > > - Can anyone subscribe to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list to see the applications come in? It is *not* listed on the page at . I don't think anyone else can subscribe. IANA is required to monitor that list and presumably whoever IANA wants are the subscribers. > - At the end of 2.2, what does "as modified by [RFC4020]" mean? Is is supposed to be "as described in [RFC4020]"? The way I always thought of it, "Standards Action" is defined in [RFC5226]. [RFC4020] ("Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points") then modifies that definition to permit early allocation under specific circumstances. The "as modified by [RFC4020]" is how I've always written this. For example, it is how this is expressed in RFC 6195 and its predecessor RFC 5395. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 5 15:54:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2071B11E80D1; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:54:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341528863; bh=4tPd3xVB11dkF65nABjjj9nhQuJBBX9eDdWbdZR3w9c=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=B15OtEbcE0nseaDCj8570LIV5NBaexCZAU1dU4jAWvjBZsekf3LuWpeoAenjm+6xJ ELLYmjXjzvzRo8ZZ2yc2oju+LDOyU625Cv7TpcDHNfbRY+IAb85WfT10etlLZ2ZKJO He4BCLisi/SW+x4vcQoUVUQjLagPhH8uTa4jYVaU= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D18D11E80ED for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:54:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOcgakA3cNYg for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F4F11E80D9 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so15760552obb.31 for ; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:54:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=gFxkCynu5GECoJNp5Lg0IRcGIaxrSthNzfrgbZJLiwg=; b=P0YySTRTpNDooqHTHeau2V1+LcILuCnjYrhYL3wxSbrwL4CHpH14pU3BOofQdR93D3 X/Yutf8MGJ75vFQR20Ifr5snSSWyuPPwFmlM3z2xh2qD9xp/h9sRyw8MlV6GVCGIXoHU G613rz69+IeQZO4KV6l6KZMX9uzFp1b5LjkGZ9qSOWAMugSUstAOhj8SpwCyeK4CBK2I WErHJEbhFQg8cZ0egl/F23IS4CfLSHjKdsMYT89gzDTh5BJVUnWuA9iW+N0lrCwVIAvu 5uQZ3wkwPcoZ/KPkL6chkDuzFsUEK7QP6da7fb+7qZwzfNmzDaSyM6aO4SrAWwCSl9Hc hhgg== Received: by 10.182.50.98 with SMTP id b2mr23139512obo.28.1341528874001; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:54:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.70.137 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:54:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:54:13 -0400 Message-ID: To: Dick Franks Cc: dnsext@ietf.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D3lafur_Gu=F0mundsson?= Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Dick, On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Dick Franks wrote: > Donald, > > My apologies for late response. > > > On 22 June 2012 19:10, Donald Eastlake wrote: > ... >>> [3.1 paragraph 4] >>> and [3.2 paragraph 4] >>> >>> Regexes: >>> >>> [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] >>> >>> (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*) >>> >>> could be simplified to: >>> >>> [A-Z][A-Z0-9]* >>> >>> (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]* >> >> That's not simplification, that's change. > A simplification of the underlying production rule for RRTYPE mnemonics, > which inevitably flows through to the regex. OK, it is a simplification of the RegEx, but one I don't agree with. >> I believe that internal hyphens should be allowed within RRTYPE and >> CLASS mnemonics. We do not know what future mnemonics or sets of >> mnemonics will be required. Better to remain more flexible here. > > There appears to be no real-world requirement to do so. The justification for > flexibility would best be debated if/when some genuine need arises. > > The collective decision of a multitude of worthy authors, over a span of more > than 25 years, has been to treat RRTYPE mnemonics as simple Algol/Fortran > style identifiers, even when some clearly had the opportunity to do otherwise. > > The regex should be tightened to make explicit a de facto standard observed > by prominent members of the IETF engineering community. We appear to disagree and no one else has spoken on this. If this were a brand new draft/standard, I'm not sure how this would be settled. However, it is not. IANA Considerations for DNS has explicitly permitted hyphens in these mnemonics since 2008 (and were silent on this point before that) and a mnemonic with a hyphen was allocated earlier and remains in the registry today. Under these circumstances, I believe the RegEx should not be changed to prohibit hyphens. > The unmodified regex has the unintended and undesirable consequence that > it allows the IANA tail to wag the IETF dog. I don't understand that at all. The applicant normally selects the mnemonic and, if the applicant doesn't, then the Expert does. IANA does not. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com >> I have no problem with making the Regex 2 exclusion slightly stronger >> so going with your changed Regex 2 is fine with me. > + > > > --Dick _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 5 16:45:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A0711E80F5; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341531937; bh=9mjRcTtmG3+nB3CKa1wZh8OibyD6y9DdjWsdFC3z8R8=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=KsITWyVwHioBHv7Z2ItaSd5CeguDv0hzg2jl84EE4A9nBbeof2o6GIXk3FoSfkisE DcZaxytys+9PRzsolpfzUvKqAuAIy9kGaDfkrpBOEsh2ZKwMfbFsvo2KPaXCGwrZ1Z vs8fU6WYad6/0Q4VdvM5FhIrNLuzesqo0VVpubiw= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F3711E808A for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.84 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4bOzu0FOq8h for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB9A11E80F4 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (unknown [199.119.129.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08DEB8A031 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:45:47 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dnsext@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120705234547.GG1245@crankycanuck.ca> References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org I'm not speaking in any sort of chair "here's-the-rules" role, but I am speaking with the background of what I've learned as a chair of this WG over time. On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:54:13PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote: > a brand new draft/standard, I'm not sure how this would be settled. > However, it is not. IANA Considerations for DNS has explicitly > permitted hyphens in these mnemonics since 2008 (and were silent on > this point before that) and a mnemonic with a hyphen was allocated > earlier and remains in the registry today. Under these circumstances, > I believe the RegEx should not be changed to prohibit hyphens. I completely agree with Donald's point here. If we are going to make a substantive change to the rules along these lines (and one incompatible with existing registrations), the bar for adoption will be _much_ higher than if we do not do that. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 5 17:09:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB0021F8707; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341533397; bh=AC9Ojo8Om/Lf3wQvy/a54qBr2p8ADbdHomSiRXDN22I=; h=Message-Id:From:To:Date:Mime-Version:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=fqzC8d0eLIY/onrl1XagbZeAHKegs/mjPpTmWde8xhDf4qX6wiGVHDI/5qAYZlMfM Ii6Q7jSH3aSkewDqLIOpmeCGnMWRIdXNhwANVqh5o0V0aZnseT0vZzJgS7O0pp9hTU f3AXnSU1IfoTwhRDaVOuXsMo3gQqS4fDP75ZisRg= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7923D21F8707 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:09:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vW7meW1mtGmx for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpoutwbe11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C0F6121F8705 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11970 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2012 00:10:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gem-wbe37.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.189.51) by smtpoutwbe11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 6 Jul 2012 00:10:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 5181 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2012 00:10:07 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 172.19.38.144 User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 5.6.22 Message-Id: <20120705171005.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.6aa0bf2606.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> From: "Michael Sheldon" To: "IETF DNSEXT WG" Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:10:05 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org > From: Nicholas Weaver > Date: Tue, July 03, 2012 8:05 am > > So by this logic, why not just advise every future RTYPE requests include, as the first byte, > a version number field, allowing all future RTYPE requests to enable updates without needing > to register a new RTYPE? This is intriguing, though would only be needed by relatively complex record types... Still, this would have to be defined as part of the original record specification, along with the procedures for defining new versions, and procedures for resolvers, servers and applications when encountering versions they do not understand/support. And then again, how many times would this have been useful? Michael Sheldon Dev-DNS Services GoDaddy.com _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 6 02:38:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AFC321F86B4; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 02:38:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341567486; bh=6OeQOG0kKUri3AXYKPwsHaED9Ij3QfQuzozYvINmBe4=; h=To:From:References:In-reply-to:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=kqzcaPc8/3UG7p/8+NeOf1d4MxMNVJGDtl8mhOjGLTPj0oEj60plH7e0uANl+6j29 VHNL9bLwi6w41kxpS9OPhw3QwHjD8ZZgBmpR+0GxJkrWBy/2tN3ArLh3KduVlWbtOn wWqzGPYiP9wI+O147gEYvkhmW1bb77GK3t0LrqzA= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C90621F86B2 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 02:38:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w-5L+eQbuq9F for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 02:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F0921F864D for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 02:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6211BC95E1; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:38:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (CPE-123-211-135-142.lnse3.woo.bigpond.net.au [123.211.135.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAF73216C36; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:37:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED242238832; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:59:16 +1000 (EST) To: Paul Hoffman From: Mark Andrews References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> <6AB4DF76-54EE-49A6-8F3E-BF1FA7782711@vpnc.org> In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:45:50 MST." <6AB4DF76-54EE-49A6-8F3E-BF1FA7782711@vpnc.org> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:59:16 +1000 Message-Id: <20120706085916.AED242238832@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org In message <6AB4DF76-54EE-49A6-8F3E-BF1FA7782711@vpnc.org>, Paul Hoffman writes: > On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >>> RRTYPE assignments need to say something about the rdata format > >>> no longer being subject to change. Its not for reserving a code > >>> point as it will be coded into implementations. > >=20 > > DANE thought that they had a code point that they could change the > > internal structure about at will by going through the allocation > > process. They needed to be disavowed of this notion. This should > > not happen again. > > Mark's sneering is one way to look at it. For a expert to be able to evaluate a RR type definition it needs to be stable. No expert can say a RR type definintion can be said to be safe / good if it is still subject to change. > Another is that, with an = > RRtype in a mature draft that labelled as TBD, implementers will just = > pick one and then eventually squat on it, screwing up both the registry = > and implementations. Then pick a private type for testing. Been there, done that. It is not impossible to do. > Standards-track protocols can be changed all the way through IESG = > review. Those changes could in fact change the internal structure of the = > data covered in an RRtype. This leaves exactly two choices: And that ends up with a total review of the impact of the new structure has on the old implementations. This level of review doesn't happen between I-D revisions. > - Force Internet-Drafts to keep their RRtype as TBD all the way until = > the IESG passes the Internet-Draft to the RFC Editor > > - Allow WGs and document authors to request RRtype assignment earlier in = > the process and know that there might be a change based on technical = > review of the document > > Pick one. > > --Paul Hoffman= -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 6 04:44:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5550621F8763; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 04:44:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341575042; bh=v1XTX75xTSQKsFw4OFbKfDt4xCWSqWgbU5kSTAT5K7k=; h=From:To:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Content-ID: MIME-Version:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=r/FWV2gVcZOHj/yvy3GI77rKSqX11WRfRKo5T1CIt47aELIdLrkVXKJMLEbhxJ7+n ScZUXcO2CzIOwRyaG21M1YelJKwz4vSNCpABGGMq0sPmNHMWxjY9WD1wAei0K/H4bX mml3SfYzH+faEx7TqXkhTv2sY3ejkgLKzjPLEK18= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AB421F8776 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 04:44:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqNJHJQp2u4H for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 04:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B64721F8745 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 04:43:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=t4P9jTXPm2W5B9Ot6+HJgcNipQA1/Rci84GOOF4/wYJQPfAWHL+DwQXG SnDfBOojRMawp6wFsGtZjonLO9LtZOxWARR0hR5nRsF/XN7fvRfIO2hsY ZGebMQss7ec3CO3; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=roy@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1341575055; x=1373111055; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Roy=20Arends=20|Subject:=20I LNP=20RRTYPEs=20review=20-=20result=20[IANA=20#561079] |Date:=20Fri,=206=20Jul=202012=2011:44:10=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<99DC3EA9-EBBB-4D91-8C0B-4AC097E3BA8E@nomi net.org.uk>|To:=20"dnsext@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|Content-ID:=20<4e82ab9e-6b0f-4b29-a11f-ad4a3a2e b68b>|In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20; bh=o1S49In7UUYv2yjLXLxuTiFiWcIMH1USnO5hJwGfSTc=; b=lnkPDbrVJeAUuv+gjOx2blhjim55id1N2lAJVc/JW9cibvRRoNoaw11v G5OWpY2oQ16Hj24PXGVpxli01GcVQrtVDBYpy561dnZCoRlARv6wAUODv +oYMOmHHU60K4op; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,537,1336345200"; d="scan'208";a="41400587" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2012 12:44:12 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:44:11 +0100 From: Roy Arends To: "dnsext@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: ILNP RRTYPEs review - result [IANA #561079] Thread-Index: AQHNW2yohhY5yqT2t0eWThyYzrP15A== Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:44:10 +0000 Message-ID: <99DC3EA9-EBBB-4D91-8C0B-4AC097E3BA8E@nominet.org.uk> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-ID: <4e82ab9e-6b0f-4b29-a11f-ad4a3a2eb68b> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dnsext] ILNP RRTYPEs review - result [IANA #561079] X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Dear Colleagues, This message ends the review process for the ILNP RRTYPEs. According to my judgment the requests meet RFC6195 at both requirements of section 3.1.1 and none of section 3.1.2 and should be accepted. I will work with the editors to address Tony Finch' editorial remarks. Thank you, Warmly, Roy Arends Best Regards, On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Roy Arends wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Below is a completed template requesting new RRTYPE assignments under the procedures of RFC6195. > > This message starts a 3 weeks period for an expert-review of the DNS RRTYPE parameter allocations for ILNP specified in http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-05.txt > > If you have comments regarding this request please post them here before July 5th 18:00 UTC. > > Best Regards, > Roy Arends > > DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE > > When ready for formal consideration, this template is > to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing the > template to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org. > > A. Submission Date: To be determined. > > B. Submission Type: > [X] New RRTYPE > > C. Contact Information for submitter: > Name: R. Atkinson > Email Address: rja.lists@gmail.com > International telephone number: unlisted > Other contact handles: > > D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application? > > Support for an experimental set of IP extensions > that replace the concept of an "IP Address" with > distinct "Locator" and "Identifier" values. > > E. Description of the proposed RR type. > > Please see: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-05.txt > > for a full description. > > F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling > that need and why are they unsatisfactory? > > There is no RRTYPE that fulfils the need due to the > new semantics of Locator and Identifier values. > > The AAAA record combines both Locator and Identifier, > so has significantly different semantics than having > separate L64 and NID record values. The AAAA record also > lacks scalability and flexibility in the context of the > experimental protocol extensions that will use the NID > and L64 records, as any valid NID record value for a node > can be used on the wire with any valid L64 record value > for the same node. > > The CNAME record is closest conceptually to an LP > record, but a CNAME is a node name referral scheme, > while the LP record is indicating that the given node > has the same routing prefix as some other domain name, > but does not necessarily have any other values that are > the same. > > Lastly, the AAAA and CNAME RR Types lack a Preference > field to rank responses. Such Preference information > is required for ILNP in order to support the use of multiple > instances of NID, L32, L64 and LP records. > > G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? > > As described in this draft, "NID", "L32", "L64", and "LP". > > H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA > Registry or require the creation of a new IANA > sub-registry in DNS Parameters? > > Existing registry of DNS Resource Record (RR) data TYPE > values should be used. > > I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS > servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being > processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597]) ? > > No. > > J. Comments: > This document defines "ILNP-aware" DNS servers > or DNS resolver as a DNS server (authoritative or recursive) > that MAY include other ILNP RRTypes in the Additional > section of a DNS response that match a QNAME (if > size permits). This is to reduce the number of > DNS stub resolver follow-up DNS queries. and only applies > when the QTYPE is either NID, L32, L64, or LP. There is no > signalling mechanism for this Additional section > processing, and this is believed to be compatible > with existing non-ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS stub > resolvers. > > No changes are required for existing deployed > DNS servers or DNS resolvers. > > _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 6 07:32:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5A221F85E6; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:32:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341585177; bh=74o+d+5Xi9WvFnzNKKinWm2f7KxvVzG0WEBD9iF6q1w=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=haLh6NRCeK3Prh4681CHtnunBLMvk/etbGVY1QOTsBfuOpbkCVXeeSfpQviickDve kytHnQKM8K0p0s6kTTHzCkudUH3OBs0mNiTrE91QbmTN7sn+LGlfrL3prurf81vqc2 qq3Qf0303kF9D688+rsyz1u10FKrRHkq1ADDdGx0= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231FC21F85E6 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:32:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n+tU1c2FHAdy for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE9F21F85E5 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q66EXArq017099 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:33:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <20120706085916.AED242238832@drugs.dv.isc.org> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:33:10 -0700 Message-Id: <1FA458DB-1E9A-40ED-99CE-1047A0C5EDB8@vpnc.org> References: <20120613090016.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.d2ce8b95d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <20120703141331.45D4D222DC10@drugs.dv.isc.org> <6AB4DF76-54EE-49A6-8F3E-BF1FA7782711@vpnc.org> <20120706085916.AED242238832@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Mark Andrews X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:59 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > For a expert to be able to evaluate a RR type definition it needs > to be stable. The expert reviews a stable request, yes. > No expert can say a RR type definintion can be said > to be safe / good if it is still subject to change. Then don't ask the expert to say that. Isn't this obvious? >> - Force Internet-Drafts to keep their RRtype as TBD all the way until = >> the IESG passes the Internet-Draft to the RFC Editor >> >> - Allow WGs and document authors to request RRtype assignment earlier in = >> the process and know that there might be a change based on technical = >> review of the document >> >> Pick one. Humorously, you didn't reply to this. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 6 11:56:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0357111E809F; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341600972; bh=hxFSLETjSdgipDGtGAlLamQAR/jmuPfwPX9Dwekd9tE=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version: Subject:Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: Sender; b=x1iqq7o7aUUDbxsbOLx/Tf9sGXGVc4Hkhh2fSDFS1ppihfrLEVeI1KhXWlF1r94hx 7/UEZe72elno/F/+wQ2fxfERITtzrexIkq/X7vAEGcUOf/rgIadNuUhwrLFfJ6VeCl bZoKHftp0P9MQvNMREUuNzKkpdd6vPdkjDt4uoqU= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DDF11E809F for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id shbl--x1wCUX for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FA611E8079 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:44788) by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:cet1) id 1SnDhR-0004su-md (Exim 4.72) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path ); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:56:17 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:cet1) id 1SnDhR-0004wJ-1c (Exim 4.67) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path ); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:56:17 +0100 Received: from [131.111.11.47] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 06 Jul 2012 19:56:16 +0100 Date: 06 Jul 2012 19:56:16 +0100 From: Chris Thompson To: dnsext@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: cet1@cam.ac.uk List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 5 2012, Donald Eastlake wrote: >Hi Dick, > >On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Dick Franks wrote: >> Donald, >> >> My apologies for late response. >> >> >> On 22 June 2012 19:10, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> ... >>>> [3.1 paragraph 4] >>>> and [3.2 paragraph 4] >>>> >>>> Regexes: >>>> >>>> [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] >>>> >>>> (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*) >>>> >>>> could be simplified to: >>>> >>>> [A-Z][A-Z0-9]* >>>> >>>> (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]* >>> >>> That's not simplification, that's change. >> A simplification of the underlying production rule for RRTYPE mnemonics, >> which inevitably flows through to the regex. > >OK, it is a simplification of the RegEx, but one I don't agree with. Regardless of the hyphen question in the first regexp, I think the change to the second is probably desirable. I don't think RFC 3597 makes it totally unambiguous that unnecessary leading zeros are not allowed after TYPE or CLASS, and it is sensible to protect parsers that are sloppy in this respect. Otherwise, one could argue that TYPE65536 ought to be allowed for a new RR type mnemonic, because it clearly isn't meaningful as a generic one. This is all a bit reminiscent of the deprecation of all-digit TLDs. Ought ".000" or ".256" to be allowed because they are would not be part of the natural representation of IPv4 addresses? -- Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom. _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 6 12:33:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F6D21F8564; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:33:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341603196; bh=OQ/BH6CgHqBvP/syob6CDhkCaxdMe+8ayt6JMWMuTUA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=SGT4u3nMUXLJkM8MYsvpxuOYGat28d7tTA1JoLnt4oCDj6EJKqoGaWU6Bc186U+8Q RogmgPOMsdF8z7BRwhjVq7dshpM6dco3Qg1lb1bIveoSfZKZJc7UCn7OCoH3G9o1r2 uvZ/LR5Y0vfp48t9mPYEdHIj4mGECR/ji5KgYu+A= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27B721F855F for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1nU6NBZ8GSCZ for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC22521F854A for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so9844855ggn.31 for ; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=GW/jl0kJUxk9P4Qq7cQlViiMaLi9XrEzA5aW0hax0mo=; b=Yxz2OdsON5lB5ww0GxU1QElIh3rogJ7hpK9stpbUxFMhOatiE3Bj3UONbtssNbek9D q8tvNlPYamCO++MB+doqmhnVl5RcAvCLu34Es3uLQ7RgTqqFcd8fxmNr+U1W1fU3Q6BY rOJUj6MU3VZfVT7GvuOxS6thQuyZxJb6zk+TKDxHzM3eTqp+LlZeZ7ZvsP7yyJifuIzH 4wqONhveREpKMjRHXZ79pXGj4kvtg50ebqXONm+oUzlhoxTwtM28aQUR75x+dESArzap X7g639L8eHryhw9/GBlCpjJumlk/xuvROFNZyo1gzOKugHnPW082Nj2CmobFMIjGSoBd HQ9g== Received: by 10.50.196.201 with SMTP id io9mr3214276igc.58.1341603211545; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:33:11 -0400 Message-ID: To: cet1@cam.ac.uk Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Chris, On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Chris Thompson wrote: > On Jul 5 2012, Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> Hi Dick, >> >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Dick Franks wrote: >>> >>> Donald, >>> >>> My apologies for late response. >>> >>> >>> On 22 June 2012 19:10, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>> ... >>>>> >>>>> [3.1 paragraph 4] >>>>> and [3.2 paragraph 4] >>>>> >>>>> Regexes: >>>>> >>>>> [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] >>>>> >>>>> (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*) >>>>> >>>>> could be simplified to: >>>>> >>>>> [A-Z][A-Z0-9]* >>>>> >>>>> (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]* >>>> >>>> >>>> That's not simplification, that's change. >>> >>> A simplification of the underlying production rule for RRTYPE mnemonics, >>> which inevitably flows through to the regex. >> >> >> OK, it is a simplification of the RegEx, but one I don't agree with. > > > Regardless of the hyphen question in the first regexp, I think the > change to the second is probably desirable. I don't think RFC 3597 > makes it totally unambiguous that unnecessary leading zeros are not > allowed after TYPE or CLASS, and it is sensible to protect parsers > that are sloppy in this respect. > > Otherwise, one could argue that TYPE65536 ought to be allowed for > a new RR type mnemonic, because it clearly isn't meaningful as a > generic one. I agree and that change is actually already in the -03 version of the draft. > This is all a bit reminiscent of the deprecation of all-digit TLDs. > Ought ".000" or ".256" to be allowed because they are would not > be part of the natural representation of IPv4 addresses? Not that relevant to our current discussion but it is my personal opinion that all-numeric TLDs should be prohibited regardless of length. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > -- > Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, > Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, > Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom. _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 8 17:33:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C1021F87B8; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:33:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341794001; bh=lFuaLvlcvkk8Nem0kDnEjhWL+bKax0RehQ98BV+QHLU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Sender; b=l8So8h4Ph7BB6afl2GzNRQnDiPD/OAsLwVuwNwrToUQhztPdDQQ/gZ+4ObcXdfpDu WSFeZXWBHG0HxFxCv8HwrmJMEriO7LRnixn1WNWOFrVQ+P2iVNHOF35DUWGKL4RKzo EkO2aWot7vnzXxgyoGpa1x1xf8JHLol7pINweYu4= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C908921F87B8 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:33:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSRTdgDnJBqJ for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5A921F87B1 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by were53 with SMTP id e53so1739760wer.31 for ; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XlyyIh4cCyzXlvEHkXc/e+zgcSpuwwT2wBdIwaokASo=; b=BFOCIws/7HRbvkN9vdZNyOclIgG/puUeK1AnlJxVDPdHAYQNc/+eTcTYHSwsqnYB4t Inw7szOLBgpLO0xK9r/R3k63FcHzdPG5/+1LBd4g6VEaSIQAnr5fNDYn/pdefMVx5ZEl yj6UaExE6U18FhMUidutgT55zg9nBgX949DLUEDE2CCr0gXjgYDtix8tRyRhLh8V7cOg SEko7c2RG3VGqX4FaBbRkCT5jzxynLp3R7Vp4RrGS7wvOElo6FxJtOz8HxgexypJKLZK VQK17Vb0m+YsAmPU5rCW6oM0I/CXelW6rqgJ0rB89UaGtS3RYJPZrPJXWEzNz6J3kvMv MbsA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.97.201 with SMTP id ec9mr25078931wib.12.1341794018721; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.27.69 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120703021834.802.77326.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 21:33:38 -0300 Message-ID: From: Robert Martin-Legene To: Donald Eastlake Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4456487766150283073==" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org --===============4456487766150283073== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04430660d9004604c45ac3f6 --f46d04430660d9004604c45ac3f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Donald. Section 3.1.1 mentions dns-rrtype-applications@iana.org which, upon reading the rest of the document, seems to be wrong. Everywhere else talks of @ ietf.org. Looks good otherwise. -- Robert --f46d04430660d9004604c45ac3f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Donald.

Section 3.1.1 mentions dns-rrtype-applications@iana.org which, upon reading the rest of the document, seems to be wrong. Everywhere else talks of @ietf.org.

Looks good otherwise.


--
Robert

--f46d04430660d9004604c45ac3f6-- --===============4456487766150283073== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext --===============4456487766150283073==-- From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 8 19:35:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8652721F8806; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:35:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341801303; bh=sIDkZKVfRpYg+kBjeELdHEAOa1H9OWler2ECd70NGFg=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=g4toX5BLuCdRGVtzTYmZ0Xs9lhDNEWnIL+OQnCE3gT5gurqZRb/StA1pEf6owrCHr hY5KzjWhkx7e9D9l6bY3AQo8Bzm/nF2TCSOU2Ri7FqG2K08aYBm0XRFNA0payWgz6H jYuuuru7eCn6cC+VAIbW9xbL+tuuijJX7d//hCFc= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932A221F8806 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A1bJTcU7Yt8Q for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0ED21F8805 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so12166127yhq.31 for ; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:35:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=3ju/2CWCkugaEMr0aQEP00WOrgNAD7Us/sIujSE2vMw=; b=zJLPN4Qp8TcOkQa6dtTDQFsTJX3yYEz5ojYkPeABp6iXsgxYr9QuBl5oi/oyAozOTV iXLR+dLqN54qr8b/zzugbU3gPKCDa64Hy+tyXC9BgXgPOKYjvllhHhdY8nZ8uP1hSbSX pMb9vTBrTzgQ+v1B0oA/heZW0IO6c2CwnJTyMEXNgHHBpwFhFrkzdpileMGoBDNjZvYk mwLgzrUDZxa3tMtP9hhTCRrtBxviNL7lp2C9I79stP9Tanj0VGC2Mlh1ea+TM5FNCPBj YhZDqr4ytBG0hR4pCZuEYqLvUp/yUCw50jCWvf3MFX2yih/eiuRudEMLNcKAjpbjQGQa 98Uw== Received: by 10.43.106.1 with SMTP id ds1mr19736475icc.24.1341801322987; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:35:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:35:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120703021834.802.77326.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 22:35:02 -0400 Message-ID: To: Robert Martin-Legene Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Ahh, sorry for not figuring out what you meant. Looking back to the correspondence with IANA and other evidence, it does seem to be @ietf.org. I'll fix the draft. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robert Martin-Legene wrote: > Hi Donald. > > Section 3.1.1 mentions dns-rrtype-applications@iana.org which, upon reading > the rest of the document, seems to be wrong. Everywhere else talks of > @ietf.org. > > Looks good otherwise. > > > -- > Robert _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 10 06:20:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855F021F86CA; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:20:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341926416; bh=VnOdDCFLBxTBg1LIZF/OJLZNU3NU+58hJYjZZDUhep8=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=Xl4/Mk8rU/5EwCqB6wEvXupP/r4G9dRfCi9YKiJe+cr2XJMPcc+E3mWSP6UpNZuNZ 6Hi+F/6/Tej0WmngLsjnwkvMsXEa3WMgMUjhLkEcwXSBOKOLHNkGGrF6BMhtKkQYn9 KI7WUgAsGAjLs/rXgNSST8cx4TPbPLF7+zmLqr+8= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600EE21F86CA for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:20:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VbjRby6JpbyY for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DF421F86C6 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6ADKeNC010600 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:20:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org) Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q6ADKeee010596 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:20:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:20:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Samuel Weiler To: dnsext@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org I've been churning through the IESG telechat comments and single discuss on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates. I have two questions for the WG, and I want to report on several textual changes that I plan to adopt, inspired by the IESG's comments. Q1: (from Stephen Farrell) > During the "no answer" mega-discussion on the DANE list, [1] I > seem to recall this comment was made more than once: "you're > seeing all this because you're maybe the first new > application that really needs DNSSEC," or words to that > effect. Should any of that discussion be reflected in this > document? (I assume its not already there for timing reasons > if nothing else.) > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg04845.html Q2: There's been another call to explain why section 3.1 says a validator MUST implement a BAD cache. If nothing better comes up, I plan to just cite http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-02/rollover.html Is there anything better? Or is there a short summary we can just copy into this doc? And the changes I've made in my working copy of the draft. > -- 2.1 -- > signal that a zone MAY be using NSEC3, rather than NSEC. > > This MAY and the one in the following paragraph are misused: they should not > be 2119 terms. Describing what a zone "may be using" is simply a descriptive > phrase, not anything normative. Actually, I would say "might be using". Done. > 1) Any reason you can't just refer to DNSSECbis as DNSSEC? I guess does the > outside world know DNSSECbis isn't DNSSEC? This is an artifact of the ages. We started this doc just after 4034 et. al. were published, and the WG still referred to them as DNSSECbis. Given today's usage, we should probably make the change. > 2) General: r/RFCXXXX/[RFCXXXX] throughout except for the abstract. A couple > of times I thought the RFC references needed to be included in [] so it's > probably better to just do it everywhere. You also need to add [RFC2308] as > a reference. Added the 2308 reference. I'll leave the rest to the rfc editor. > 3) s1 paragraph two: RFC 6410 got rid of Draft Standard so either > r/Draft/Internet or r/from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard/along the > Internet Standards track. Or something like that. Done. > 5) s2, s2.1, s2.2: Could you replace the three instances of "should {also} > be" with "are"? If the WG considers them part of the core, then aren't they? > It also avoids the whole question about whether it ought to be SHOULD (not > that I'm asking to change that). Sure. I used "are now" and "is now". > 9) s5.11: could you just strike "note that" Sure. How about "This requirement applies to servers, not validators."? Lastly, there is one open Discuss on the document, inspired by a GenART review. Andrew Sullivan replied to the GenART review on the IETF list. I'm waiting for a response from Russ Housley, and I'm hoping we can resolve that without more textual changes. Feel free to comment on that thread separately. -- Sam _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 10 07:50:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2068F21F86DE; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:50:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341931831; bh=O82L3sry4x1R6ZOdQnlho5iclZhutfwcuW2XqeUbLR4=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=aARmupPhAbze84hRM9k9g9a6jHQx/GEUpYJbUCM01i6QDdsnNkMWwZy5ByV31vQy9 5Y4aMPHPM0PAejnKsDkDdtYr857GHbpV+sUB1QqrBMc+XXVzm93Y1KkHAMclWsee5q XMUxvbFITMRKbyyIi0PFxzVHhHkCzUkDegBh9z+I= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65A921F86E3 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TseJXhYzAhXo for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B15621F86DC for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6AEooAn014037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:50:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:50:51 -0700 Message-Id: References: To: Samuel Weiler X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote: > I've been churning through the IESG telechat comments and single discuss on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates. > > I have two questions for the WG, and I want to report on several textual changes that I plan to adopt, inspired by the IESG's comments. > > > Q1: (from Stephen Farrell) > >> During the "no answer" mega-discussion on the DANE list, [1] I >> seem to recall this comment was made more than once: "you're >> seeing all this because you're maybe the first new >> application that really needs DNSSEC," or words to that >> effect. Should any of that discussion be reflected in this >> document? (I assume its not already there for timing reasons >> if nothing else.) >> >> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg04845.html It would be helpful to DANE and future protocols if "no answer" was discussed more fully. The amount of differing opinions about the four states *even among DNSSEC-knowledgeable people* in that thread and others was significant. The fact that "bogus" is defined differently in different DNSSEC documents didn't help us come to conclusion, either. > Q2: There's been another call to explain why section 3.1 says a validator MUST implement a BAD cache. If nothing better comes up, I plan to just cite http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-02/rollover.html Is there anything better? Or is there a short summary we can just copy into this doc? Citing that article works, but a short summary would be better. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 10 13:27:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D56C21F86B7; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:27:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341952070; bh=mUoiNd9fvaXI0lXq+3VSiCPgtCJg55Pgf1QtnecWHiY=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=L61dN1SOnHwoydo896oHAwpSj8kBzewarXFNC4jdSTZgCTArEDKKae0i8kYvsPTbf OhutEF/XRY2V0r6TnxW9YYVSlDMtCGUKBgLI74U7wwnMRMRv2yCkCqo8io5amq08b8 qvxA3CXP31UxUjLydU133AljswRZcWCjE8tH5EgM= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D845421F86B7 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:27:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xFuc3n6IIRsF for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E778021F86AA for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87B921B402E4; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:28:13 -0400 Message-Id: References: To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Samuel Weiler , dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote: > >> I've been churning through the IESG telechat comments and single discuss on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates. >> >> I have two questions for the WG, and I want to report on several textual changes that I plan to adopt, inspired by the IESG's comments. >> >> >> Q1: (from Stephen Farrell) >> >>> During the "no answer" mega-discussion on the DANE list, [1] I >>> seem to recall this comment was made more than once: "you're >>> seeing all this because you're maybe the first new >>> application that really needs DNSSEC," or words to that >>> effect. Should any of that discussion be reflected in this >>> document? (I assume its not already there for timing reasons >>> if nothing else.) >>> >>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg04845.html > > It would be helpful to DANE and future protocols if "no answer" was discussed more fully. The amount of differing opinions about the four states *even among DNSSEC-knowledgeable people* s/even/especially/ A number of DANE folk (myself included) had an instinctual understanding of various results, including "no answer" and "bogus" -- unfortunately we all seemed to have differnt understandings... > in that thread and others was significant. The fact that "bogus" is defined differently in different DNSSEC documents didn't help us come to conclusion, either. Yup! W > >> Q2: There's been another call to explain why section 3.1 says a validator MUST implement a BAD cache. If nothing better comes up, I plan to just cite http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-02/rollover.html Is there anything better? Or is there a short summary we can just copy into this doc? > > Citing that article works, but a short summary would be better. > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext > Credo quia absurdum est. _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 11 00:06:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF5011E80F4; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:06:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341990387; bh=s/cc9bxyxPoJKo1Vu2qQ1xJQap4LTLfrmtBNrahSKgM=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Z2g8088R3oEzj6wixCDisx1PpYpbsaoQT4fzf5Qy0GBB2ioJYjWMcFhodq2KtPHf6 1wdHBwJa5AIF0hs/XFyzfPvPKluiLF01lMGSeGm9IuxmKFX9rVlgSFUBLzkhwG8EHF TS0cYNB0WCHHO+JEMM060CkY1Jk0g1CfTNXIP4qo= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DDB11E80F4 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTlJkCKlMMZJ for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3475011E8098 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588C9142D12CC; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:06:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goXghhSh9bMy; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:06:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CF2142D12C2; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:06:52 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:06:51 +0200 Message-Id: References: To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Samuel Weiler , dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On 10 jul 2012, at 16:50, Paul Hoffman wrote: > The amount of differing opinions about the four states *even among DNSSEC-knowledgeable people* in that thread and others was significant. The big difference is between people that do think it is a good thing that people in X.509 world themselves can "click" on "continue anyways" on a validation failure. I think personally it is *feature* that with DNSSEC a validator by default do not return anything if validation fails for some reasons, and the end user can not do anything at all about it (part from running its own resolver etc etc). But I do understand other people do have other views. Because of this, for me, a no-response in DANE is the same as failed validation, and such a failure that the end user/application should not continue. At all. No "continue anyway" etc. Giving the ability "to continue" opens the door for denial of service attacks as a way to circumvent DANE security. So to me there are three states only. - No DANE in use - DANE in use, validation succeeds - All other cases Patrik _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 11 04:59:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C883F21F8625; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 04:59:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342007955; bh=tlKAmCRwMuq8Qttbyt9ZAPkIRJf/VQxM1AxJktfh6/k=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=dCXaTgGHcXr1h0i0ss+FkqKwBQd0Ljz3kYiZ67DLArc8TPNI6gRU053KyxT+0Fb7R x9/m70qTqvEF+SvZeTH8kyCB8f0hSL9SxRsaAiLFLJTgtQIO+36heV3KPu13uuyYbA Z2zYDEG6ziBvNyPnlVLuL5q0JtBTCxrCYAd/uKjs= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FFE21F8625 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 04:59:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.84 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AUYGDaKHlnVG for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 04:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B91621F8622 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 04:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (bas1-malton22-1167905092.dsl.bell.ca [69.156.209.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43C308A031 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:59:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:59:43 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dnsext@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120711115942.GB82178@mail.yitter.info> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org No hat. On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 07:50:51AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > It would be helpful to DANE and future protocols if "no answer" was > discussed more fully. The amount of differing opinions about the > four states *even among DNSSEC-knowledgeable people* in that thread > and others was significant. The fact that "bogus" is defined > differently in different DNSSEC documents didn't help us come to > conclusion, either. Although I agree with this, I thought the difference between the docs was explained by the different perspectives the documents were working from? Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 11 07:41:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5818421F86E2; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342017695; bh=b7CwA6qPdyksR0s72Ijy8cBlnYUv++PdBsHuqPKEBhI=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=SZjWOW6CIPixDWdWvF6QZ2DvYsy4zbGqN5Xtzwc8Pk6zw3HGNrc4t3SgcZuyuGq3/ 26BuRpNwTiQtBJwPv0zg1cBfDTffg6PlAJdfjrkQgDA9JuvoxgFdaDw4kHi+pqUo9c 5vB1Z7F4Upbc001Z7qyWt9RWSPXoKJMyLnsScNcw= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF92A21F86E2 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rCqN0FGFA3d6 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6F721F86E0 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6BEftCt038001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:56 -0700 Message-Id: <5B8B6E62-3903-4B26-821C-DFA55FA6D4F3@vpnc.org> References: To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Samuel Weiler , dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 11, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > = > On 10 jul 2012, at 16:50, Paul Hoffman wrote: > = >> The amount of differing opinions about the four states *even among DNSSE= C-knowledgeable people* in that thread and others was significant. > = > The big difference is between people that do think it is a good thing tha= t people in X.509 world themselves can "click" on "continue anyways" on a v= alidation failure. That is *not* where the difference of opinions about DNSSEC were. The diffe= rences were about what specific events constitute bogus versus indeterminat= e or insecure. There were good reasons for the WG to differentiate between = bogus and indeterminate/insecure, but the DNSSEC documents had places of un= clarity, including two different definitions of "bogus". > I think personally it is *feature* that with DNSSEC a validator by defaul= t do not return anything if validation fails for some reasons, and the end = user can not do anything at all about it (part from running its own resolve= r etc etc). > = > But I do understand other people do have other views. Exactly. The "other views" from different people who the community thinks u= nderstand DNSSEC made it hard for us to know what to put in our document. T= hus, the request for clarity in *this* document. > Because of this, for me, a no-response in DANE is the same as failed vali= dation, and such a failure that the end user/application should not continu= e. At all. No "continue anyway" etc. This view ignores the fact that PKIX has its own protections to which DANE = is adding value. It is fine if this WG wants to say in dnssec-bis-updates t= hat other protocols that want to add value with DNSSEC should fail to less = than the protocol if DNSSEC does not return "secure", and it is fine if thi= s WG wants to say that "we aren't going to specify what other protocols wil= l do", but the current DNSSEC documents do neither. > Giving the ability "to continue" opens the door for denial of service att= acks as a way to circumvent DANE security. > = > So to me there are three states only. > = > - No DANE in use > - DANE in use, validation succeeds > - All other cases If you want to change DANE, please so do in the DANE WG. The thread here is= about making the DNSSEC document clearer for other WGs who will want to us= e DNSSEC. If the DNSSEC spec had been clearer on what bogus means and what = the expectation of the IETF is for why there is a difference between insecu= re and indeterminate, the DANE WG discussion would have gone *much* better. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 13 15:21:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E1711E8107; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342218086; bh=ZGMu3oqW3Dyf5/jF4UOzliojME2vvG2NleLduUOmI/0=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Message-ID:Date:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=kEhHt5Ewi2LyoPLx/70YrbSmkfG1LlatogqgbdIdDlKrL0+pqJ+wZ6pr1l40bn8Rl 2Aq93FjesSsZf6rJGdmGXZO6DgdXGTnL8pcAfV1vvFM9kSzD7K8J2p/hRbbmShY8Ys 8c4DLJ3kXDHUKBovYCtZj/MEPWH4sgJxPzGax6PY= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F0C11E8116; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3XWOchH-Znug; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D8111E80EC; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.30p3 Message-ID: <20120713222124.30361.25897.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:24 -0700 Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNSSEC Author(s) : Samuel Weiler David Blacka Filename : draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-07-13 Abstract: This document is a collection of technical clarifications to the DNSSEC document set. It is meant to serve as a resource to implementors as well as a repository of DNSSEC errata. This document updates the core DNSSEC documents (RFC4033, RFC4034, and RFC4035) as well as the NSEC3 specification (RFC5155). It also defines NSEC3 and SHA-2 as core parts of the DNSSEC specification. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 14 04:04:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E792421F8639; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:04:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342263891; bh=Uoh2xAFzgOZg2XiAFRP2hD7KZcbJiASeKfmI9XHv+0g=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=wJ5GCJnOH/TyQ55di4Sn2/soaF+WhCxmhPRnaIILwWo1FbIwGabQ70d9JrBho71oY sRCON96TeGZOJvfwmXXc+C37HcgFgVqUKktY8DFd9tTUTDq4mFPiD1Zr8FoN1JVt7M N9DBOTARlsqLmtGwwxiS4g1Fy/1Me9JceX3Tlf3Y= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0CC321F8639 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:04:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id alvfDBIbiXu0 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA9321F8637 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6EB5M3A005123; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:05:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org) Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q6EB5MMH005119; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:05:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:05:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Samuel Weiler To: Scott Rose In-Reply-To: <8CC420BD-C5B6-4444-AC48-A0D127DE7B83@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20120326142607.26742.59731.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8CC420BD-C5B6-4444-AC48-A0D127DE7B83@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Cc: DNSEXT Working Group Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-01.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Scott Rose wrote: > This version addresses Sam Weiler's comments on the -00 version and > adds the ECDSA algorithms. If the group thinks any of the assigned > implementation status for entries should be changed - please state > so. Personally, I'm thinking ECDSA might be moved to > "Recommended..." since there are some advantages, but willing to > leave it as is. Thank you for addressing all of my comments. I appreciate the attention to detail. No opinion re: ECDSA. -- Sam _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 14 04:17:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E4C21F8736; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:17:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342264661; bh=KlQsBeJ2EhWh2SQxKkM5Al84AbphypJC/mOkrXIJpwM=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=mkkZEOmO0p75mMMaRqHAGgnyV/HN8jXizwQzI5qBUatvL2RnQgskzThIxCnGMFpMW 63q2ppE7ODxIu+PQznS+DqwZ/PjpAhjhCEi+3erUm6BkWgn0vubJLSZivWWVo7fLDB hHEJ5rOXRqmKBk1DuhTqHoPC7VJPk3166tv1zj/I= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68C421F8736; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:17:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNWiQIFOoMio; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D42D21F8735; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6EBIHXH009866; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:18:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org) Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q6EBIHPj009863; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:18:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:18:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Samuel Weiler To: ietf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120627135256.11457.74759.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: References: <20120627135256.11457.74759.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org General comment: no objection. The table in section 2.2 is odd: in addition to the three entries being updated, it lists some BUT NOT ALL of the other assignments already made. I suspect that's a historical artifact. My suggestion: since the intro text in that section says "The list of .. registry entry changes is below", remove all entries that aren't changing. That will make the reader's job easier. -- Sam Weiler _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 15 15:53:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1AA021F842D; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:53:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342392801; bh=VeW9xnez+aBOENrXAe/S7Fi8Pn9nEfBxgHCQ9awF8bg=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Message-ID:Date:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=mYA/NeYZrrd4mQjChpTyJ+hrvZQ1j0dKzl+CkpbFkhUrE16ie6iNRfJp7npRXC4SD +VootzrKdCvmx1PVaZmRkIpifbCn6vH/UtoHq2i7GNJXJwYQ2S4AcLnacLGdozBhli +e5TS7lpkTjNF/M0jK8NZc7eha4L0kXQ9fRgozSg= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BC411E808F; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xtTJmVvoPoq0; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7AD21F841E; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:53:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.30p3 Message-ID: <20120715225319.24623.25843.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:53:19 -0700 Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Author(s) : Donald E. Eastlake Filename : draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2012-07-15 Abstract: This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930, and 3597. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 15 15:58:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC5311E8088; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:58:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342393122; bh=Iwwyl67gXF4PeOu8vXZwJBIWatlVam6+F5S486mpeRY=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=LMLNyxcMzjEIUEgcBPBjVcKDnbU9slcbqx8YaBjOOA4Q7a3mWYcopGiqxHpr8PkvN 9DC8XRCtNUs8pueZyERyR1qYWvewbq/tlMqdxdGesIhYpyf3nNHjSYMSoiy4O2OquG 1wGwjGN9fn3K3HWG5NvTAra4t3ZVqMRUX0dZTwLM= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C554511E8088 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:58:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lN+cmFPDR1in for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F6411E8085 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so9516993obb.31 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:59:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=DSddVGGYcQUCXHgPET2J3CmeQ7X3hBmFYA0lIk+UBvI=; b=Spb/rTCeKuiIjcAxJC/7y0zRiF/JCbiCkJ+3R4/RATG4q+O/sSXXHgpH1Yqp5Vc1jl X2NjMa/BEX+q6BfY8upFFbThD0JoGlSiBThQIt7XZ91zmdqkvP3LFMgDGBL9GtxMNopf LIB+RqUTS7z07LeL1i1BwsY/lCaFhLRdmZ80HZFUY8uFiSFi/78JPG/XEWEL0TpmO7j5 pDuh8YkeCjfz47jhM8B6DgVNzR+8AHm+u5rtH07etJAM53eG6E2cqHldEcfEIkle3ruu F8IUWXsURCNeAB42GwhMU3U9k/GUHhfqGUOvPdndwmNfSQ0dCJos9BWexpqVUHN37Z3q VX1w== Received: by 10.50.34.200 with SMTP id b8mr3942029igj.50.1342393162816; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:59:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120715225319.24623.79754.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120715225319.24623.79754.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:59:02 -0400 Message-ID: To: IETF DNSEXT WG Subject: [dnsext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Changes from the previous version are quite small as you can see at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt I believe this incorporates all comment resolutions that have been agreed to on the list. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt To: d3e3e3@gmail.com A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Donald E. Eastlake and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis Revision: 04 Title: Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Creation date: 2012-07-15 WG ID: dnsext Number of pages: 22 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04 Diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04 Abstract: This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930, and 3597. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 15 16:36:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90DB11E8097; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:36:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342395394; bh=fPASKFbB8aNQrgJC6PHuf0qB1jTZkhqurUGRVf+Q1NU=; h=Message-ID:From:To:Date:MIME-Version:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=iMolWUKJlBBBHV+zb3MJH3Upm5wQDVZ0KR8KZ65vzHFpRbAYNX7fxfrj+9G9dI7bc myUsSGHMn7AN7xTbCKRzQIwVHpzxewB/obpkB65kggDaPjzV4wSrUs1akbjAhICfV9 3rGEe1ONG3jr2r62rlX2996uoJoL2htBFZJK1oTw= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C8221F84EC; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:03:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CPLzv8ntUBcV; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay59.tele2.vuurwerk.nl (relay59.tele2.vuurwerk.nl [62.250.3.59]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39AE21F84EB; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [87.215.199.34] (helo=BertLaptop) by relay.indetel.net with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SqIs5-00063H-VP; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:04:02 +0200 Message-ID: <7981A832108446BA9EEC7C4742B87BFF@BertLaptop> From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" To: Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:03:56 +0200 Organization: Consultant MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:36:31 -0700 Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, ops-ads@ietf.org, dnsext@ietf.org Subject: [dnsext] Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update-03 X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Sorry for being a tidbit late (My excuse is that I was on vacation and only saw this request this morning). I believe that this (short) document is well written and ready for publication. This is a set of updates to the DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry. As far as I can tell, that does not have any operatioal or network management impact in the Inetrnet. Bert Wijnen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tina TSOU" To: Cc: ; Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 5:41 AM Subject: Request for Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update-03 by 2012-07-11 Hello, As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being asked to review the following draft which is in IETF last call for it's operational impact. IETF Last Call: The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update/ballot/ Please provide comments and review to the Ops-dir mailing list (ops-dir@ietf.org) by 2012-07-11, and include the authors of the draft as well. A Check-list of possible questions/topics to address in an OPS-DIR review may be found in Appendix A of RFC 5706. Only include the questions that apply to your review. Would you add the review requests and update the status by yourself at our wiki page? http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Reviews Thank you, Tina _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 16 07:25:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5543611E80C6; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:25:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342448730; bh=akx9RQAuCAfxqnoQvrwUVrBNcnV10RVkFYNIBPBzPEI=; h=MIME-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Sender; b=eaAaOmBnyW8h3vhYYKAHBRIOml7gqiT2YdwnWymu6GAGGlVm+FA1ccDu+3gvNz4B5 sBI+rBxclGbedcQxOJCxHVnZtBXzj21LEQL24z/CW/F+KuZ1sNNTTThubqI9ciJ8Ww 35J87rwPU2hUNw4rsIEc/Sb+Qqt4jhdW8jCeDO40= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03D321F879D; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:25:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qf24VVimkVsP; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wsget2.nist.gov (wsget2.nist.gov [129.6.13.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7D421F8790; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WSGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.42.34) by wsget2.nist.gov (129.6.13.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:26:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.nist.gov (129.6.16.226) by smtp-g.nist.gov (129.6.42.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:26:06 -0400 Received: from 6-140.antd.nist.gov (6-140.antd.nist.gov [129.6.140.6]) by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q6GEQ5A3010058; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:26:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Scott Rose In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:26:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20120627135256.11457.74759.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7368881330367099082==" Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org --===============7368881330367099082== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_815F6DFD-0B17-462C-9D85-50F01FE1BAD1" --Apple-Mail=_815F6DFD-0B17-462C-9D85-50F01FE1BAD1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks for the review. =20 The table in section 2.2 in the -03 draft only has the entries that need = to be updated. Besides the 3 entries that are now Reserved, but the = references for some other entries have been fixed. I removed the = correct, unchanged entries for readability (the mnemonics for some of = the entires skewed the table and made it difficult to read). Scott=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Scott Rose NIST scott.rose@nist.gov +1 301-975-8439 Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671 http://www.dnsops.gov/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Jul 14, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote: > General comment: no objection. >=20 > The table in section 2.2 is odd: in addition to the three entries = being updated, it lists some BUT NOT ALL of the other assignments = already made. I suspect that's a historical artifact. My suggestion: = since the intro text in that section says "The list of .. registry entry = changes is below", remove all entries that aren't changing. That will = make the reader's job easier. >=20 > -- Sam Weiler >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext --Apple-Mail=_815F6DFD-0B17-462C-9D85-50F01FE1BAD1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
scott.rose@nist.gov
+1 = 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 = 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Jul 14, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote:

General= comment: no objection.

The table in section 2.2 is odd: in = addition to the three entries being updated, it lists some BUT NOT ALL = of the other assignments already made.  I suspect that's a = historical artifact.  My suggestion: since the intro text in that = section says "The list of .. registry entry changes is below", remove = all entries that aren't changing. That will make the reader's job = easier.

-- Sam = Weiler

_______________________________________________
dnsext = mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

= --Apple-Mail=_815F6DFD-0B17-462C-9D85-50F01FE1BAD1-- --===============7368881330367099082== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext --===============7368881330367099082==-- From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 05:59:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDFB21F866D; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:59:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342529962; bh=revsolTCDTIbfOxwpwS9Kctq6TkC/hwd33XWDWhu7/w=; h=From:Date:Message-Id:To:Mime-Version:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=t3x6X9elyv9EWpW9ziw+VAXLU2CiAaky6hNi1CtZxDKU1ziWHakmGFCht0eyqMiie LSH/R5jhRMqAU7LYDseDD05nlcoTqZgY2HCN4A/kG+kVw58jljF/iip/RENO5O7QKu Ih/xZEdLNd2l4unDMitU/LbOPcojDgLVaoePvPWE= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C263F21F866C for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:59:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FFBBnrIDHkBD for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C88A21F8665 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF6F14354299 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:00:07 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovFa8BdnIAZa for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:00:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48F814354284 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:00:02 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:00:02 +0200 Message-Id: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> To: dnsext@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org All, As this was announced on June 14, 2012, and Scott Rose immediately followed up with an announcement (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12514.html) and there have been exactly zero comments I am a bit shy of declaring victory. Can I get please at least three people that have seen this version, read it, and support it moving forward (part from myself and the authors of the document? Patrik _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 08:54:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9703521F8668; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342540453; bh=dBdnXdTEzIF0VSySvxICsW+n4ol+adMT5zUa01ZNqXU=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Nl6VAl6Yuo23YHQ9lk2rhiKSll3d6ZpcfamN6URkd9VF6tEhWraXO1NpPVYwPiS8s Oy1qt6U40i5oZh6ztBnV3Cq9sQL3E3xebcClVU/UPi6SSbTRIUz0/h87JpjWYNSvWW ttvyUERP/L7k2ND5w6zNldV+GgnWPoL+w+r2zSCM= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9974621F8668 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:54:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65s-BxC8zwHE for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB8C21F8667 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (66-87-87-245.pools.spcsdns.net [66.87.87.245]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E1531B40115; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:55:36 -0400 Message-Id: References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 17, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > All, > = > As this was announced on June 14, 2012, and Scott Rose immediately follow= ed up with an announcement (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/cur= rent/msg12514.html) and there have been exactly zero comments I am a bit sh= y of declaring victory. > = > Can I get please at least three people that have seen this version, read = it, and support it moving forward (part from myself and the authors of the = document? I have (finally!) reread the document (again!) and to be honest am getting = bored with it -- I believe it is fully cooked and should be taken out of th= e oven and published before it gets burnt=85. Warren "Stretching Analogies to Failure" Kumari. > = > Patrik > = > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext > = -- The plural of anecdote is not evidence. -- Bill Lockyer, California Attorney General _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 09:23:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A2121F85B4; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342542198; bh=qjdZK3slotc3qQLlE8XRAX1aNgi/sQ0V/56sg+xYH0Q=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=k/ST4W+UR0GadeZmOikwy1GXy5nmEPUWWxjM5zrlSBIu+3bDQD8GYVjrculGhrSPs f36g6W8G54ZSI5Hqc/JjHlgM4SV84dtzWm5l6chzvbhigLFEFip9USKonog7m3myuX 3rjZckfZK7sV5ayqpFe6Mt8TBL1+5lVnaXwCrboI= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC0C21F85B4 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:23:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.429 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IgtR9qFL2C8z for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2190C21F8551 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6HFbuFX077517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:37:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:23:55 -0700 Message-Id: <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 17, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > As this was announced on June 14, 2012, and Scott Rose immediately follow= ed up with an announcement (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/cur= rent/msg12514.html) and there have been exactly zero comments I am a bit sh= y of declaring victory. > = > Can I get please at least three people that have seen this version, read = it, and support it moving forward (part from myself and the authors of the = document? I have read the document and think it may be ready for IETF review, but it = also might not. Section 3 still says: The validating end-system resolver sets the value(s) in the order of preference, with the most preferred algorithm(s) first as described in section 2. It does not say how a resolver choses the order of preference, probably bec= ause they have no frigging idea how to measure that. How can one express a = preference between RSA and ECDSA, for example, without knowing the RSA key = length? Worse, how can you even have a preference when what you really have= is a list of algorithms that you fully accept and a list that you fully re= ject? My preference remains the same: get rid of this ordering, stop pretending t= hat people who run resolvers care about this as much as security geeks do, = and stop suggesting to people that they should care about something they do= not understand. But if the WG wants to leave this in, no significant harm = will be done. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 09:59:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C339021F869C; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:59:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342544388; bh=+UIo6yErWajRCWqNbwww69UNfimUtqQ6UnIw9818K3E=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=TmO9tzC92wBtKjUOGjzQPMreII5KjRmLeXxX4o3RKWrw7zGF28ISGpKWOJSXdc3f5 vCYsFRxROrrc1OivoogHJG6cV3IkYRd3kqFjBmR7HEtOCK6CiU5b4wbwHJajBGC2qx WFJGP2/VQobzRaSEPa4CFW2bNqDvlGH3jxqpj6wM= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4263C21F869C for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DMZhFFIGOke8 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7D721F869A for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [70.88.139.89] (account steve@shinkuro.com HELO [192.168.168.156]) by execdsl.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTPSA id 20696731; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:00:58 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Steve Crocker In-Reply-To: <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:00:30 -0400 Message-Id: <5A201A57-A13E-4021-A012-CEA37DA5DBED@shinkuro.com> References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Paul, There is a subtle point that may be helpful to recall. The primary purpose= of advertisement of which algorithms are understood by the resolver is to = provide a measure of the adoption of new algorithms. In the broad, slow cy= cle of introduction of new algorithms and the presumed phasing out of old a= lgorithms, operators on the signing side of the equation will be choosing w= hen to sign with a new algorithm and when to stop signing with an old algor= ithm. They can sign with a new algorithm whenever they feel ready to do so= , but they cannot rationally stop signing with the old algorithm until they= have evidence that essentially all of the resolvers understand the new alg= orithm. Thus, as I said, the primary purpose of this protocol extension is= to provide measurable assessment of the uptake of a new algorithm. From t= his perspective, the order of the algorithms within the resolver's advertis= ement is irrelevant. Subordinate to this primary purpose is the potential for also advertising a= preference. Whether the responding system pays attention to the order is = up to the responding system. Also, as you suggest, the querying system may= or may not have a real preference. I don't think we have enough informati= on to say one way or the other, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. = Let's move this forward and revisit your concern when there is some impleme= ntation and deployment experience to examine. I hope is that this is the w= orst issue we will have to deal with. Steve On Jul 17, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 17, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > = >> As this was announced on June 14, 2012, and Scott Rose immediately follo= wed up with an announcement (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/cu= rrent/msg12514.html) and there have been exactly zero comments I am a bit s= hy of declaring victory. >> = >> Can I get please at least three people that have seen this version, read= it, and support it moving forward (part from myself and the authors of the= document? > = > I have read the document and think it may be ready for IETF review, but i= t also might not. Section 3 still says: > The > validating end-system resolver sets the value(s) in the order of > preference, with the most preferred algorithm(s) first as described > in section 2. > It does not say how a resolver choses the order of preference, probably b= ecause they have no frigging idea how to measure that. How can one express = a preference between RSA and ECDSA, for example, without knowing the RSA ke= y length? Worse, how can you even have a preference when what you really ha= ve is a list of algorithms that you fully accept and a list that you fully = reject? > = > My preference remains the same: get rid of this ordering, stop pretending= that people who run resolvers care about this as much as security geeks do= , and stop suggesting to people that they should care about something they = do not understand. But if the WG wants to leave this in, no significant har= m will be done. > = > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 10:10:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0DD21F86A7; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:10:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342545027; bh=w4X8Vin/rk243OK1r4OrrXe+O4hXuFKgmNfY/IrC5Wc=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Go/fygwvu8mTMDRapxGsItZc/jI86uPXFMpW1tyYGn65xVG198oaGln3Mt7Fqmb91 Ix2cermEKXbl/qMW7AscIl6NBSBnnqyJ0wRcC1Fh/+eE+HJviV6LJ7USBPceBodKLD JrUx6kHzGW7+JAwsS1NoSrT0wdsLcVyrd3bMxh+A= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3571C21F86BB for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x6oB+qfWp1ip for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C7221F86A7 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6HGP4g9084057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:25:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <5A201A57-A13E-4021-A012-CEA37DA5DBED@shinkuro.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:11:03 -0700 Message-Id: References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> <5A201A57-A13E-4021-A012-CEA37DA5DBED@shinkuro.com> To: Steve Crocker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 17, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Steve Crocker wrote: > There is a subtle point that may be helpful to recall. The primary purpose of advertisement of which algorithms are understood by the resolver is to provide a measure of the adoption of new algorithms. In the broad, slow cycle of introduction of new algorithms and the presumed phasing out of old algorithms, operators on the signing side of the equation will be choosing when to sign with a new algorithm and when to stop signing with an old algorithm. They can sign with a new algorithm whenever they feel ready to do so, but they cannot rationally stop signing with the old algorithm until they have evidence that essentially all of the resolvers understand the new algorithm. Fully agree with all that. > Thus, as I said, the primary purpose of this protocol extension is to provide measurable assessment of the uptake of a new algorithm. From this perspective, the order of the algorithms within the resolver's advertisement is irrelevant. And that too, of course. > Subordinate to this primary purpose is the potential for also advertising a preference. Whether the responding system pays attention to the order is up to the responding system. Also, as you suggest, the querying system may or may not have a real preference. Nowhere in this document or any other DNSSEC RFC do we give any advice on why a resolver should have a preference. And that's a good thing. > I don't think we have enough information to say one way or the other, We disagree, strongly. Until you can show that more than a small fraction of the users of this will have a preference, saying that all of them need to have a preference in order to express it in a list adds a layer of complexity that you cannot show has any value. > and the perfect is the enemy of the good. Thats a convenient way of saying "I don't know, but I liked this feature before, so let's leave it in". Some of us prefer not to add superfluous features and would use different trite saying to back our opinions. > Let's move this forward and revisit your concern when there is some implementation and deployment experience to examine. Errr, how? Under what criteria could that evaluation be made? I propose that there are none possible. > I hope is that this is the worst issue we will have to deal with. Fully agree. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 11:38:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61A921F8484; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:38:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342550288; bh=TkTk3lrkkQC9SV2F+fEU8zHaarzFLx1LcUKyGgA/zPc=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=dr/HUxyzL6PxaiAdkl16A3cx1L7pCuOyC7L/Qbph/j2QXTU8pgHeTm7mzI2UTLpWK 3Va/jmkQEqjFePalQtJCLo5gyxVNc7T7MWt8nMFoeNQyF6GkmwtZWrG+YppCjypPgG Vk8hWu5qohrDYt4N0HyvoejaVVtElgM0GqO2FxUI= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8455E21F8483 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:38:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.827 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ePq3WLcDDZ2 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AE621F8480 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so571464vbb.31 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:38:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=F85IcvOMz8FAjpGK80AgIaUUOqC8Qv0EEl7RlLx/Zuc=; b=bDOqtQuyL/wVweHEAZM3kPn+HSEierjaP+Z2zr/Rh9wFmMlN/972dJSUzrw3Qp/8zM E5K6893Nzie3+ZFU6pcqw+tnf5C3YpbSPMBk6/F8RQpV1L4pmt3QxCxGLc9Ra2EmSVGV Awv1Ee0zSTY8NAWSrXbexRQi8GE5FT/D3rHdhKD3q8cWPCzVWHJVkaYh8LxU8hR5BOzC sHYaT3NHxAgGTsz4ElTGf+j72XU5MkF9qmYx1x6WHk3wlKs5CXCGMEGyXdxY35Ws6A4f OgqX53jgeu4k3UytByRPKuuEdMNMaLRAr0fe8bxez7KracmVp0zpIzFXVZp7qPVLehOv Ftkw== Received: by 10.52.88.170 with SMTP id bh10mr1470870vdb.11.1342550334344; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:38:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.157.162 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:38:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> From: Dick Franks Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:38:34 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: o-cYY3NPDYycBo3R16h1JLQ7Ja8 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org UGF0cmlrLAoKUmVhZCB2ZXJzaW9uIDA3LCBhbmQgc3VwcG9ydCBpdCBtb3ZpbmcgZm9yd2FyZC4K CkRpY2sKLS0KCgpPbiAxNyBKdWx5IDIwMTIgMTQ6MDAsIFBhdHJpayBGw6RsdHN0csO2bSA8cGF0 cmlrQGZyb2JiaXQuc2U+IHdyb3RlOgo+IEFsbCwKPgo+IEFzIHRoaXMgd2FzIGFubm91bmNlZCBv biBKdW5lIDE0LCAyMDEyLCBhbmQgU2NvdHQgUm9zZSBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSBmb2xsb3dlZCB1cCB3 aXRoIGFuIGFubm91bmNlbWVudCAoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2Vi L2Ruc2V4dC9jdXJyZW50L21zZzEyNTE0Lmh0bWwpIGFuZCB0aGVyZSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gZXhhY3Rs eSB6ZXJvIGNvbW1lbnRzIEkgYW0gYSBiaXQgc2h5IG9mIGRlY2xhcmluZyB2aWN0b3J5Lgo+Cj4g Q2FuIEkgZ2V0IHBsZWFzZSBhdCBsZWFzdCB0aHJlZSBwZW9wbGUgdGhhdCBoYXZlIHNlZW4gdGhp cyB2ZXJzaW9uLCByZWFkIGl0LCBhbmQgc3VwcG9ydCBpdCBtb3ZpbmcgZm9yd2FyZCAocGFydCBm cm9tIG15c2VsZiBhbmQgdGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50Pwo+Cj4gICAgUGF0cmlr Cj4KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwo+IGRu c2V4dCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKPiBkbnNleHRAaWV0Zi5vcmcKPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2Ruc2V4dApfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpkbnNleHQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0CmRuc2V4dEBpZXRmLm9yZwpodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2Ruc2V4dAo= From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 11:54:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5448621F861D; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:54:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342551244; bh=5vR2xHPLU6AUV5l+2nGsjf8gBxRzlo2Sjb2K7ZlX68s=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=cpyum+XrqQCuE+MBiBNCmmpeqCbdr6LOuY1wCEvfllCgkSQDUL4qb0ADIUyVnIA8U GeClM6lVYszXx5hY4RHrfST9uzDJUJcGuxbQWWzL2UY1bXShqEXbiI08y7eEhcj6vy ubWfJUrFDK2iRkPAYw24kjP44HM++mAQ+2dl5z9E= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5C621F867C for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtCvlDFFB6qC for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FC121F85A2 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6D81435A6D9; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:54:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JCym7iQCRyFw; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:54:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.165.72.14] (unknown [192.165.72.14]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6851435A6CE; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:54:39 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:54:38 +0200 Message-Id: References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> <5A201A57-A13E-4021-A012-CEA37DA5DBED@shinkuro.com> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On 17 jul 2012, at 19:11, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> I don't think we have enough information to say one way or the other, > > We disagree, strongly. Until you can show that more than a small fraction of the users of this will have a preference, saying that all of them need to have a preference in order to express it in a list adds a layer of complexity that you cannot show has any value. > >> and the perfect is the enemy of the good. > > Thats a convenient way of saying "I don't know, but I liked this feature before, so let's leave it in". Some of us prefer not to add superfluous features and would use different trite saying to back our opinions. Paul, I understand your issue and as one person that was part of the design of NAPTR, user of it, confused user, I completely understand the headache users might get that you talk about. But, while I might have headache over the weight and preference in for example NAPTR, I know people that do use it. So, let me ask you: Is this existence of this parameter for you a blocking factor for this document? I do not mind if you expand a bit because I must as shepherd of this document understand whether what you feel is something that still is in the rough part of rough consensus, and if so that your view should be paused until there is IETF last call and your input goes to IESG. I can understand if you see these kind of parameters in DNS "go away", but so far we have sort of used them in many RR Types, and maybe what you ask for is a generic change in how we design new RR Types. But the question is whether *THIS* document should be where we take that step on "generic design decisions". Patrik _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 12:05:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E2A21F8638; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342551946; bh=5sp+twklZLAjV+MmBSiV/4rTbRvEEf6fIK/6evuQ2hA=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=u4DXAK6OpYnwVJWocxPOWTGO10gvC9posEl6s0TUgfGCCaLQEPMs3tJiwTV2gfEic CuvHcvof+RcCTpYRdkJJbwId84nsPvrcQqzaRksJ4ngqQFN3RQKZjd8WJPI63ZH439 XB+XfIb0NIjB++ljpEQ/wEDpy0pjzpHeuaSNGbzA= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB6E21F8638 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.427 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gf3T5N3ss+n5 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8024521F8624 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6HIKRqF001798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:20:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:06:25 -0700 Message-Id: <3604D7DA-3A1F-475F-8EB1-1787BF8A3023@vpnc.org> References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> <5A201A57-A13E-4021-A012-CEA37DA5DBED@shinkuro.com> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 17, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > Is this existence of this parameter for you a blocking factor for this do= cument? I thought I was clear in my earlier message: no, not blocking. I bring it u= p now because it is a useless addition that is trivial to remove. > I do not mind if you expand a bit because I must as shepherd of this docu= ment understand whether what you feel is something that still is in the rou= gh part of rough consensus, and if so that your view should be paused until= there is IETF last call and your input goes to IESG. I say "useless" because, unlike NAPTR, the ordering of the lists is optiona= l. Because of this, the optionality of the preference ordering makes the or= dering useless. That is, if I say I know "SHA1, SHA256" you don't know if I= prefer SHA1 (because it's shorter, and I don't care about anything above 6= 0 bits of strength) or whether I have no preference and listed them in nume= ric order or whether that order was set by my software. That is, you cannot= determine if my order is surprising or uninteresting. This invalidates any= value to the ordering. If the WG leaves in the ordering, I believe that we need to add "however, i= nterpreting the order in answers will lead to wrong conclusions". If I'm wr= ong and someone can show how a recipient can tell the difference between an= swers that were ordered on purpose and those that were not, that's great: w= e can add it to the draft. > I can understand if you see these kind of parameters in DNS "go away", bu= t so far we have sort of used them in many RR Types, and maybe what you ask= for is a generic change in how we design new RR Types. But the question is= whether *THIS* document should be where we take that step on "generic desi= gn decisions". I do *not* want the parameters to go away: I said that I support the public= ation of this document. All I am saying is that the optional ordering is us= eless and will cause problems for validators ("where do I read why I should= have a preference") and zones who make false assumptions on the order seen. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext From dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 12:11:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA56821F8703; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342552272; bh=DyGvTN05/jOPXqURYx8/lLrcPxfcQK/aOWaJepw5muY=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=vPLw8VTZcyWaxZUa9LB3v0cRxR52bdXFJth2DPTzDqSlV5BtmatJD65WaUxxRt5bY tV4z5BnkZG3yq416NOtZEPZoH/x+A2rLyPmtXNfcZrghlkkna2Qx09NIoWqMERyth/ sw387cmpWYfS+3mxUz7ukGUimCVBfKqt4SHdz4TY= X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F204221F8621 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Br2kCCQ+1FxW for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4126521F8703 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783A71435A9C7; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFNdgKQmAgcc; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.165.72.14] (unknown [192.165.72.14]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462AB1435A9C0; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <3604D7DA-3A1F-475F-8EB1-1787BF8A3023@vpnc.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:53 +0200 Message-Id: References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> <5A201A57-A13E-4021-A012-CEA37DA5DBED@shinkuro.com> <3604D7DA-3A1F-475F-8EB1-1787BF8A3023@vpnc.org> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: dnsext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org Thanks! Patrik On 17 jul 2012, at 21:06, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 17, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > = >> Is this existence of this parameter for you a blocking factor for this d= ocument? > = > I thought I was clear in my earlier message: no, not blocking. I bring it= up now because it is a useless addition that is trivial to remove. > = >> I do not mind if you expand a bit because I must as shepherd of this doc= ument understand whether what you feel is something that still is in the ro= ugh part of rough consensus, and if so that your view should be paused unti= l there is IETF last call and your input goes to IESG. > = > I say "useless" because, unlike NAPTR, the ordering of the lists is optio= nal. Because of this, the optionality of the preference ordering makes the = ordering useless. That is, if I say I know "SHA1, SHA256" you don't know if= I prefer SHA1 (because it's shorter, and I don't care about anything above= 60 bits of strength) or whether I have no preference and listed them in nu= meric order or whether that order was set by my software. That is, you cann= ot determine if my order is surprising or uninteresting. This invalidates a= ny value to the ordering. > = > If the WG leaves in the ordering, I believe that we need to add "however,= interpreting the order in answers will lead to wrong conclusions". If I'm = wrong and someone can show how a recipient can tell the difference between = answers that were ordered on purpose and those that were not, that's great:= we can add it to the draft. > = >> I can understand if you see these kind of parameters in DNS "go away", b= ut so far we have sort of used them in many RR Types, and maybe what you as= k for is a generic change in how we design new RR Types. But the question i= s whether *THIS* document should be where we take that step on "generic des= ign decisions". > = > I do *not* want the parameters to go away: I said that I support the publ= ication of this document. All I am saying is that the optional ordering is = useless and will cause problems for validators ("where do I read why I shou= ld have a preference") and zones who make false assumptions on the order se= en. > = > --Paul Hoffman > = > = _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext