Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th
Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> Thu, 10 March 2011 12:56 UTC
Return-Path: <weiler@watson.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946863A699A for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:56:40 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fp2-yiHACpsB for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:56:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FCC3A6924 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2ACt82h063378; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:55:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p2ACt80l063375; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:55:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:55:08 -0500
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
To: Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br>
In-Reply-To: <20110218213453.GB96163@registro.br>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103100742001.60284@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20110218213453.GB96163@registro.br>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:55:08 -0500 (EST)
Cc: iana@iana.org, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:56:40 -0000
The presentation format definition says: flags Is an unsigned integer between 0 and 15. But the flags field on the wire is a full octet, and bit 0 is defined. Should the presentation format allow 0-255, instead? > 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? ... > Yes, the following registry assignment is requested. ... > 5.2. Certification Authority Authorization Properties > > IANA [is requested to create] the Certification Authority > Authorization Properties registry with the following initial values: ... > Addition of tag identifiers requires a public specification and > expert review as set out in RFC5395 [RFC5395] Is it really appropriate to allow a template to create IANA registries? It does seem odd to me that a template can create an IANA registry when the i-d it cites can't itself create a registry until published as an RFC. Perhaps IANA should comment on that. In any case, the cite to 5395 suggests that this is attempting to reuse the DNS RRTYPE expert pool for this registry, which seems odd. It also doesn't define the criteria an expert should use. I suggest the proponents of this look at RFC5226 and specific their own criteria, perhaps with their own expert. It might be appropriate to skip the IANA registry for the moment. Resubmit the specificcation with no IANA registry ("here are the two values") and only create the registry in the RFC. Which brings us to the discussion on the list yesterday: the template should really be citing a particular version of the spec. It hardly seems fair to ask the expert to approve an RRTYPE based on a reference to a changing document. -- Sam
- [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end … Frederico A C Neves
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Andrew Sullivan
- [dnsext] [IANA #434639] Re: CAA RRTYPE review - C… Amanda Baber via RT
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period … Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] [IANA #434639] Re: CAA RRTYPE review… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - result [IANA #43… Frederico A C Neves
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - result [IANA #43… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - result [IANA #43… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - result [IANA #43… Paul Wouters