Re: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: (with COMMENT)

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Thu, 09 July 2015 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389431A8A55; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 TCkTOOSmySYL; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D72561A8A43; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDF251FCABC; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 03:11:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 97FCF216C57; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 03:11:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 03:11:14 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <20150709031114.GA78479@isc.org>
References: <20150708225400.20543.78092.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHw9_iJ9LPDhhdDby4QW6K354P7rEuxOjTbAVdSmd2td7AAJnw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iJ9LPDhhdDby4QW6K354P7rEuxOjTbAVdSmd2td7AAJnw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-EUE7SHi8H_p3Dj0Pe7Q75Btopc>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors.ad@ietf.org, "dnsop-chairs@ietf.org" <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 03:11:21 -0000

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:50:09PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Less flippantly, it is in this email:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13004.html  I
> don't think that we have a really good motivation for a week, other
> than that is feels sort of like a good, human scale timeframe to
> recheck on things. We really want there to be a limit on the lifetime,
> a week felt right...

Yep, that's pretty much it, right there.  A day isn't enough (we had
feedback from customers to this effect) but anything longer than a week
strikes me as much too likely to fall off operators' radar.  Though the
limit is arbitrary, I do believe that we need to assert *some* limit,
on this approximate time scale.

> but, I still like "because Evan said so..."

Yes let's definitely document it that way. "... MUST NOT exceed a week,
due to the whimsical and capricious nature of Evan.  Pray he does not
alter the deal any further."

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.