Re: [dns-privacy] [Fwd: [EXT] New Version Notification for draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin-01.txt]

[Peter van Dijk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Duane,

On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 22:13 +0000, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> While I remain neutral as to whether or not ds-dot-signal-and-pin is a good idea overall, you can count me as one that thinks flags=257 is a bad idea.  I don't think anything in 403[345] say that flags can be interpreted differently depending on the algorithm or on the value of the Zone Signing column.  

I agree, there is no 'legal' basis there, and our document aims to
avoid needing any new legal basis (or, rephrased, we aim to avoid
updating any existing RFCs if we can). I wanted to put 257 in -01
exactly to get some more feedback on the choices we have there. An
informal small scale survey around a few registrars with extensive
experience in a lot of TLDs suggested that 0 would not go over well,
but we don't actually have a lot of data. (We are collecting data at 
https://github.com/PowerDNS/parent-signals-dot/issues/22 if anybody
wants to chime in with more facts).

I would also much prefer flags=0.

> The document uses the phrase "DNSKEY algorithm" very often but I think you really mean DNS Security Algorithm (or just algorithm).  For example, 
> 
>    more than one DS record with DNSKEY algorithm TBD
> 
> is better as just
> 
>    more than one DS record with algorithm TBD

Thanks! We've noted this at 
https://github.com/PowerDNS/parent-signals-dot/issues/37 and will
improve the wording for -02.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/