Re: [dnsext] Report from the chairs for IETF 80

Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> Fri, 01 April 2011 14:18 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 5A8F03A6842 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, 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 Xk4UbdIKeLPq for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE71A3A681A for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 p31EK3mx093910 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:20:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p31EK3dx093906 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:20:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4D907B27.9000301@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103280937060.59780@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20110328085104.GJ85412@crankycanuck.ca> <4D907B27.9000301@nlnetlabs.nl>
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]); Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Report from the chairs for IETF 80
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: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:18:24 -0000

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Matthijs Mekking wrote:

> I think it would also be good if we could come to a consensus on 
> clarifying how the resolver should interpret section 2.2 (RFC 4035) 
> (see the discussion on 'Clarifying the mandatory algorithm rules').

I agree.

Matthijs, Mark Andrews, and I spent some time earlier this week trying 
to reach an understanding.  Matthijs's post earlier this week tries to 
summarize that discussion, but I'll post shortly with some more words 
on the topic.

-- Sam