IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Clarifying the mandatory algorithm rules

Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> Thu, 18 November 2010 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <weiler@watson.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 39DD93A6870 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:18:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.48
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 7eZFHWMbZqi8 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1A93A6827 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oAIFJYPu012844; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:19:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id oAIFJY2s012841; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:19:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:19:34 -0500
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTNsV=CFc10fhULMx3cpaoaYhUKiCMkFj1p3cn@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011181017580.2821@fledge.watson.org>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011180553250.83352@fledge.watson.org> <AANLkTinTNsV=CFc10fhULMx3cpaoaYhUKiCMkFj1p3cn@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:19:34 -0500 (EST)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Clarifying the mandatory algorithm rules
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, 18 Nov 2010 15:18:48 -0000

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Brian Dickson wrote:

> The zone should not have been able to be loaded with the signatures 
> missing.

Concur.

> And given that it did, I'd say unbound did everyone a favor in this 
> instance, highlighting both the operational issue, and the RFC issue 
> we're discussing here.

Concur re: operational issue.  I don't think there is an RFC issue 
(other than clarity, obviously).

-- Sam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email