IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 10 March 2011 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 221333A6945 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:04:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.640, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 hfZanuHV3Jc6 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:04:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4870:a30c:41::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11F63A67F8 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sn87.proper.com (sn87.proper.com [75.101.18.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2AL5V36086500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:05:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Message-ID: <4D793D1B.4030202@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:05:31 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20110218213453.GB96163@registro.br> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103100742001.60284@fledge.watson.org> <20110310200748.GY57756@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110310200748.GY57756@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 21:04:16 -0000

On 3/10/11 12:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 07:55:08AM -0500, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>> Which brings us to the discussion on the list yesterday: the template
>> should really be citing a particular version of the spec.
>
> I don't believe it should, and I don't think that would be desirable.

+1 to Andrew's response and analysis. It is pretty inexcusable to have 
an IETF-vetted BCP that says how this registry is populated, and then 
say "we didn't really mean that, we want to be more restrictive". If you 
really want to have that much control over the registry, please write 
rfc5395bis and see if others agree.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email