comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-08
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info> Fri, 10 March 2006 22:13 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHprx-0005wQ-Pf for dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:13:57 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHprv-0001ko-GF for dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:13:57 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1FHppF-000ExD-02 for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:11:09 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FORGED_RCVD_HELO,INFO_TLD autolearn=no version=3.1.0
Received: from [207.219.45.62] (helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <andrew@ca.afilias.info>) id 1FHppE-000Ex2-7m for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:11:08 +0000
Received: from wormhole2.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.2.130] helo=trilby.local) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1FHppD-0005pB-Bl for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:11:07 -0500
Received: by trilby.local (Postfix, from userid 1019) id 8E39E191CA6; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:10:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:10:38 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-08
Message-ID: <20060310221038.GE1027@afilias.info>
Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andrew@ca.afilias.info
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Dear colleagues, I have read draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-08. Here are my comments. I compared the methodology of the experiment to the methodology outlined in draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-02. I believe that it is consistent. Therefore, assuming the latter draft is the community's view of how such experiments should proceed, I agree that the opt-in draft should go forward as an experimental RFC. Per the Chairs' instructions, I have not evaluated the mechanism in the experiment. Nits ==== I have a question about section 4.1.4. I wondered about the reasoning for specifying RCODE=REFUSED as a SHOULD rather than a MUST there, given the requirement that the processing mustn't happen. (If people think this is part of an evaluation of the mechanisms in the experiment, I withdraw the question.) Also, I note that RFC2137 has been obsolted by RFC3007. I don't know whether that matters for this document, though. Best regards, Andrew Sullivan -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x4110 -- to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
- comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-08 Andrew Sullivan