Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

Wes Hardaker <> Fri, 04 August 2017 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112791276AF for <>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.741
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1PTEH5g8oTh1 for <>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C29012708C for <>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0351A2778E; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <>
To: Matthijs Mekking <>
References: <> <>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 15:08:25 -0700
In-Reply-To: <> (Matthijs Mekking's message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:34:56 +0200")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 22:08:31 -0000

Matthijs Mekking <> writes:

> It's been a while since I have had a look at this draft, my apologies.

No worries; I'm due to publish the copy that is sitting on my disk with
updates to the math.  So *my* apologies in return.

(and the update should be a bit easier to read too)

I'll review your math proposal before publishing.  I'm not sure we agree
with your analysis yet, but will consider it carefully.

> Furthermore, this document should also give guidance on the wait time
> before a revoked DNSKEY can be removed from the zone:

(which is also in the unpublished update)

> This document should probably update RFC 7583 because it is giving a
> better definition of Itrp and Irev.

Probably true too.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll be honest, I've
always had a hard time reading 7583 because the acronyms fly fast a
furious and it's hard to remember which is which.

Wes Hardaker