[dane] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6698 (7975)

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> Sat, 08 June 2024 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C966C151069 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tnetconsulting.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O9U9I_NSRL1E for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6A5C151098 for <dane@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id 458Fg4FR020664 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <dane@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2024 10:42:04 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2019; t=1717861324; bh=Mm/0YUZIf/bVQQrYaJXkWCxpfur9xgl2V3OtPHk7vlI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:User-Agent:Subject:To:References: From:Content-Language:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc: Content-Disposition:Content-Language:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Date:From:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-Version: References:Reply-To:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc: Sender:Subject:To:User-Agent; b=12Duk1cuubxH1/vWsN8IotoATH3cuggAWYTNHBDO1jYc2S9vqZo3gssaXz1bH0w+y cKgjy1zKXwpxrUleuWX1qH9CPHHOAX5nePOYcig+9quETkeKaz+X3ZRNWEl0UpnoaE NmcVo1VR9HoqmedN+PLbhogy2kqkIe4dVOvQQM0w=
Message-ID: <1e72f096-f300-4913-af00-8d22f77079cb@tnetconsulting.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 10:42:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dane@ietf.org
References: <7ED88306-05F0-4684-8782-44559FF17BA7@ogud.com> <0796FD14-0E9E-4CD0-911F-1F848DBD738E@nohats.ca>
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <0796FD14-0E9E-4CD0-911F-1F848DBD738E@nohats.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000008040208030205050802"
Message-ID-Hash: J3IZVOBDCKV5NBYQZELTKJCDQGXCMWAT
X-Message-ID-Hash: J3IZVOBDCKV5NBYQZELTKJCDQGXCMWAT
X-MailFrom: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dane.ietf.org-0; header-match-dane.ietf.org-1; header-match-dane.ietf.org-2; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [dane] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6698 (7975)
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/ruaJQ3oWPpY4CANIlwxdqbM8zVM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dane>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dane-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dane-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dane-leave@ietf.org>

On 6/8/24 08:36, Paul Wouters wrote:
> delete, not reject, is the proper action for spam.

I agree that the content is unwelcome.

But I believe the content is at least remotely on topic.

As such I wouldn't consider this spam in the UCE sense.

My personal preference is to actively reject it and let it serve as a 
guide for the types of comments that are discouraged.

Don't deny that something exists / happened just because you don't like 
it.  Own it's existence and respond to it as necessary.



-- 
Grant. . . .