From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <ybl4luqq05v.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
 <7d425067-84ff-2471-d39a-0c3a20c0116c@pletterpet.nl>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 15:08:25 -0700
In-Reply-To: <7d425067-84ff-2471-d39a-0c3a20c0116c@pletterpet.nl> (Matthijs
 Mekking's message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:34:56 +0200")
Message-ID: <yblh8xn9eau.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0zefHOC5kEj-aV7FlvzueSdBsEw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations
Precedence: list

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl> 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(which is also in the unpublished update)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
USC/ISI