Return-Path: X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90012C1840C4 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:22:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strandkip.nl Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R9cfv67C5Dzz for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from st43p00im-zteg10063501.me.com (st43p00im-zteg10063501.me.com [17.58.63.176]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B543BC151548 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:22:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strandkip.nl; s=sig1; t=1722492916; bh=kY8p7yfZm2t0hy189z+hFZajv/94gpROD27HnSqFTzg=; h=Content-Type:From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:Message-Id:To; b=pghbQpe7yqwpXd2R98woBfTEW+AdSkmx+Qy6HA3+r58ugr4Lq7i+S8WkFjiNRIZcC USO/YOVmHvzSrEbTeW8uOm5vMdWFYinlLlkPPlHIWp3owTm0vxBOK5WW97Agib7lwV IfAQrwtV+PVOWPdBo320+nmD1xtt0EfSzWOIAgEVhNkEhTLOi2KJbLIN6V/AxMspMx AkRVhHseeiKXSxQi4LxlF7C+lvK+9U8agC3PR1M2yBQGiSrANo6Rg5UgTvieHOuJGg AALdRCVovJNrl1JKyyf73JqYhFwxccOdnR+5x4hiMFEQCXq6QjeBCBvlHRiZ6YPdim s0eHnLAfaeWsw== Received: from smtpclient.apple (st43p00im-dlb-asmtp-mailmevip.me.com [17.42.251.41]) by st43p00im-zteg10063501.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31D7A98026D; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Joe Abley Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 08:15:01 +0200 Message-Id: <003BDE3E-6058-45A4-A028-EA7FFCC14EE7@strandkip.nl> References: In-Reply-To: To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21G80) X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: lca7zm_50-oS_rFY-pE0KH6ZM7dMUn_A X-Proofpoint-GUID: lca7zm_50-oS_rFY-pE0KH6ZM7dMUn_A X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.28.16 definitions=2024-08-01_03,2024-07-31_01,2024-05-17_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=709 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1030 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2308100000 definitions=main-2408010035 Message-ID-Hash: UP5WV7TBEEX7KAOUA6O7QZWGZBOFEGKH X-Message-ID-Hash: UP5WV7TBEEX7KAOUA6O7QZWGZBOFEGKH X-MailFrom: jabley@strandkip.nl X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: dnsdir@ietf.org, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" , draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BDNSOP=5D_Re=3A_=5BExt=5D_Dnsdir_last_call_review_of_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?dnsop-rfc7958bis-03?= List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 1 Aug 2024, at 02:29, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Is there implementation experience with the new format? What was the >> implementer feedback? >=20 > We have heard informally that some implementers have added the new feature= s with no problems, but they obviously can't test it until there is a new tr= ust anchor file from IANA, and that's waiting on the standard to be publishe= d. Why obviously? The software that generates the file is not secret, and presumably there is e= quivalent hardware to that used in the KMF that is available for testing. It= seems like it ought to be straightforward to generate some test files. Test= ing prior to first production use seems like a sensible thing to do. Similarly, it seems like testing the adequacy of the standard before it is p= ublished is the right the order to do things. It's much harder to correct am= biguity after publication than before.=20 Joe