Re: [dnsext] DNSSEC, robustness, and several DS records

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 11 May 2011 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18777E06F3 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
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=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oT4WFU99xWib for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4953EE0763 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4BKMHmp010275; Wed, 11 May 2011 22:22:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201105112022.p4BKMHmp010275@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 11 May 2011 07:27:50 PDT. <63381BB3-7552-4721-B334-CFE292AA9465@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:22:17 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] DNSSEC, robustness, and several DS records
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:22:45 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Note that the text in RFC 4509 has a SHOULD, not a MUST. The fact
   that the BIND and Unbound people treat it as a MUST seems like a
   bug.
   
=> I don't understand how the SHOULD can be interpreted in order to
avoid the "bug" (:-). Seriously you can disagree with RFC 4509
but not about the way it has to be implemented, i.e., your concern
is not about what it should be...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr