IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Authenticated denial of existence...

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl> Tue, 26 November 2013 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3031AE194 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:14:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rhePWSpLbmRA for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691241AE192 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:981:19be:1:b8ae:58e:dfb5:8bd1] ([IPv6:2001:981:19be:1:b8ae:58e:dfb5:8bd1]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAQ7E1g2080732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:14:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl)
Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=nlnetlabs.nl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl rAQ7E1g2080732
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1385450043; bh=qe1XWFfVxU0o0NC9lbbMpW/czpljh9l0okTpWlcoiSU=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=tX2/pw+vgdoS8RKfwpFpghN5ESByTORzc4e8lxYmrNSDHkdyGPhcqkHvhCSqr44vM x7d0MhkTf2ZjsePVak96X5r1MJdZlwdDQ4M/XFIpbnCmOaJ9s6lE56r2NKSmF/zOcx z7XUdCmCKBvyFuJDc+pvcz7gY/u3B4yOboY7qhJE=
Message-ID: <52944A39.50602@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:14:01 +0100
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, Jelte Jansen <jelte.jansen@sidn.nl>
References: <CFD6B510-D70E-4308-BF3E-B2E7C2ADCBEB@nominum.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1311201202570.11548@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <21132.63250.716415.755401@gro.dd.org> <20131125140508.GB20994@miek.nl> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1311251538220.24198@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <52937303.4070904@sidn.nl> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1311251558261.11548@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1311251558261.11548@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:14:03 +0100 (CET)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Authenticated denial of existence...
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:14:08 -0000

On 11/25/2013 04:59 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Jelte Jansen <jelte.jansen@sidn.nl> wrote:
>>
>> now that you quote it like that, I think that using 'allowed' in that
>> first line is misleading; it's not so much that the protocol doesn't
>> allow on-line signing, the requirement was that it didn't have to rely
>> on it. Also, IIRC the preferred term was on-the-fly rather than on-line.
> 
> Good points. What's the best opposite for on-the-fly? Pre-signed?
> 
> Tony.
> 

I don't want to be nitpicking on words, but RFC 4470 has "on-line
signing" in its title. And then off-line seems to me the obvious opposite.

I do prefer "requirement of not relying on it" better than "allowed"

Best regards,
  Matthijs

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status