Re: [DNSOP] Minutes for 23 April 2020 Interim
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 27 April 2020 00:50 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 ED8163A0858 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 17:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 P_k-6riLPP6i for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 17:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6697C3A0855 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 17:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499R5s40y7z7R0; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 02:50:41 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1587948641; bh=hfgH0ZfV8qShn9QSRgOpwsO1pTsyLTN0KSbK5b+6rpQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=KLF9hrvsxJm1b/th61qhb+8SiJxge6/KNbw0XMEC9hMsfq03jQ6g6p8+4qDe6cgzX GlKG9k5eOJMryhC0iD1U1IFteFR+IG05PG30D7zxwvpSxBxvT+H2QvQrq/7Vk8VE4l Ixj8iVRksTqXFScYWoBmaL62IAgxJEffZhZVEQYg=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q73jLTZT_zeT; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 02:50:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 02:50:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C842C6020DB1; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 20:50:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78F866B7C; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 20:50:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 20:50:39 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+HUBAfExtZsgNgR8D78_yj3oX13hmCn3rzKYfc28y9p4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2004262045310.20651@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+HUBAfExtZsgNgR8D78_yj3oX13hmCn3rzKYfc28y9p4Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1JiaYNhiNJSQPW2fEmM6PpEoER0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minutes for 23 April 2020 Interim
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:50:46 -0000
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> We've uploaded the minutes from today's session
Thanks for the minutes. One comment on the GOST comment from Jim:
Jim: Supports work
Wants references to old ones to be deprecated
Note that RFC-8624 already made algorithm 12 (ECC-GOST) a "MUST NOT"
for signing and a "MAY" for validation.
I agree that for 8624bis, the MAY should become a MUST NOT. Ideally
after we have the new GOST DNSKEY algorithm. The justification is that
this algorithm has been obsolete for a while now, and there is no real
deployment of it. As far as I know, there were only two domains in .ru
that used it, mostly for testing? Maybe Viktor, Dmitry or Stanislav
could confirm this.
Paul
- [DNSOP] Minutes for 23 April 2020 Interim Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Minutes for 23 April 2020 Interim Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Minutes for 23 April 2020 Interim Dmitry Belyavsky