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

Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> Thu, 30 July 2009 07:59 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 15E163A716F; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.839
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.839 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.644, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 krEPrMlQ7Blm; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77823A69A0; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1MWQSt-000Oj7-DM for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:54:15 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <pfaltstr@cisco.com>) id 1MWQSo-000Oh6-L7 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:54:13 +0000
X-Files: PGP.sig : 186
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAPnucEqrR7O6/2dsb2JhbAC5VognkBEFhBE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.43,293,1246838400"; d="sig'?scan'208"; a="180494251"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2009 07:54:09 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6U7s9q4004688 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:54:09 -0700
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6U7s7pA008268 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:54:09 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-332.cisco.com ([144.254.231.73]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:54:09 +0200
Received: from dhcp-17cb.meeting.ietf.org ([10.61.104.90]) by xfe-ams-332.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:54:08 +0200
Message-Id: <583565A9-886F-41FB-92EA-B9F3E6741A7C@cisco.com>
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
To: "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org WG" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Apple-Mail-96-50308259"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: [dnsext] draft-crocker-dnssec-algo-signal-03 -- more time please!
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:54:07 +0200
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail d55 (v55, Leopard)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2009 07:54:08.0608 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB17D600:01CA10EA]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2093; t=1248940450; x=1249804450; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20<p af@cisco.com> |Subject:=20draft-crocker-dnssec-algo-signal-03=20--=20more =20time=20please! |Sender:=20; bh=fImU1/TYyF88nibpuYz2pXU7iSsqwltUTp26N9uHBbE=; b=llUKPi5ZOA4NsPI8e0MXmODt/o2KWGWdD/IJqibmp8NzyzlH4wL+/nXi4T NQObezP0ChYIo911gGs/o1MDxGG9AxxXjGX++QxVfRLftdNU1bVc65MtEAXy woUIlbIraZ;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>

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.

     Patrik