Re: [dnsext] draft-crocker-dnssec-algo-signal-03 -- more time please!

Eric Osterweil <eoster@cs.ucla.edu> Mon, 03 August 2009 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265203A691F; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:50:04 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X360JrappU8J; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FA73A6D1F; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1MY0YN-000ANu-Mf for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:38:27 +0000
Received: from [2607:f010:3fe:102:101c:23ff:fed0:918c] (helo=out-66.smtp.ucla.edu) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <eoster@cs.ucla.edu>) id 1MY0YJ-000ANU-0F for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:38:25 +0000
Received: from smtp-13.smtp.ucla.edu (smtp-13.smtp.ucla.edu [169.232.46.240]) by out-66.smtp.ucla.edu with ESMTP id n73GbgDZ017821; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:37:42 -0700
Received: from mail.ucla.edu (mail.ucla.edu [169.232.48.151]) by smtp-13.smtp.ucla.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n73GbgDZ017821; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:37:42 -0700
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (c-98-245-169-210.hsd1.co.comcast.net [98.245.169.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.ucla.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n73Gbd3j019605 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:37:41 -0700
Cc: "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org WG" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <3F64D9EB-1ECD-43AB-87C1-B14F75316FBF@cs.ucla.edu>
From: Eric Osterweil <eoster@cs.ucla.edu>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <583565A9-886F-41FB-92EA-B9F3E6741A7C@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-crocker-dnssec-algo-signal-03 -- more time please!
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:37:35 -0600
References: <583565A9-886F-41FB-92EA-B9F3E6741A7C@cisco.com>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.2.0 (v56)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-Probable-Spam: no
X-Scanned-By: smtp.ucla.edu on 169.232.46.240
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> A status report...
>
> People are still reaching out to me, and it is pretty clear to me  
> that many people have problems answering yes or no to the question,  
> and that seems to be similar reasons as both yes and no people want  
> to talk so much about the issue.
>
> I will next week summarize in a bit more detail, but it seems people  
> have the feeling that as the overall goal for standards in the IETF  
> is interoperability, and the question is really what impact multiple  
> algorithms have on real life interoperability. How are the  
> algorithms selected? What if everyone "just pick" a favorite? If we  
> are going to have preferred algorithms, how do we shift in and shift  
> out algorithms in that pool (that might have only one entry)? How do  
> we roll over algorithms? Etc...
>
> Everyone (almost) I have talked with think that if we only talked  
> about the real problem, then most certainly one of the things that  
> will be needed is some kind of signalling, for example in the  
> transition from one algorithm to another, but at this point in time  
> -- that is impossible to say.
>
> So at the moment, I see the consensus in the wg is "not yet, we need  
> to work on other documents first, or at least in parallell".
>
> But, I at the same time think I have been contacted by "no" sayers  
> more than "yes" sayers, so I ask the wg chairs for another week of  
> work on what my findings on what the consensus of the wg is.

I don't know if this response comes too late in the process, but I'd  
like to express my support for this document and the ideas in it.  I'm  
happy to provide more specific reasons for why I feel this is a really  
good idea, and why I think we should pursue it if I am, indeed, not  
too late here.

Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkp3ElMACgkQK/tq6CJjZQID0ACaA6gpTxK+sLCf0G8j1rgCMg2u
fiQAnAldz5JV/HqwbJuojkyNp/mOexaB
=Tj50
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>