IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: KSK-Sentinal: Once more down the naming rathole.

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Wed, 21 February 2018 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
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 69E1112D96D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:42:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JwNQOnEzmOgJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C63512D94A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:42:25 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:42:25 -0800
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Re: [DNSOP] KSK-Sentinal: Once more down the naming rathole.
Thread-Index: AQHTq0ma65N/41Z2WEmcU9fXompjbqOvx+cAgAAC5QCAAAGlgP//uDoA
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:42:25 +0000
Message-ID: <8632B472-F466-4E1F-827D-549167B51DA1@icann.org>
References: <CAHw9_iLqEerV-So7704qu7A2mbD6YQbzdF8A3FEGtUPOE+6NWw@mail.gmail.com> <DC8845C9-6329-4A02-97F9-45C991726F71@vpnc.org> <CA+nkc8D6zbVMJmntTtEub0iLSB=3Qf8khMu6VibOGrDM55oXpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhMdTPLdVVFCdRTzr9B3sZKGcf0D2pw6C80+V18GqX_=K-2ag@mail.gmail.com> <41098C27-BA7F-4B47-9C97-6536CD353665@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <41098C27-BA7F-4B47-9C97-6536CD353665@verisign.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.a.0.180210
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8F2A604AD0DAAC4CA4BA9B1955849C37@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4aaZHV3V-RrblgGK2_rY7zDC0Ik>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: KSK-Sentinal: Once more down the naming rathole.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:42:28 -0000

On 2/21/18, 14:59, "DNSOP on behalf of Wessels, Duane" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of dwessels@verisign.com> wrote:

    
>    > On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>    > 
>    > Why did 8145 specify hex? I don't remember the discussion.
    
>    I argued for hex and leading zeroes because I thought it might be beneficial to have some structure in the query name, in case there were false signals from name collisions, etc.  ie, _ta-0001 vs _ta-1.

I was (back then) for hex because it was fixed width.

Now I think sticking with the common/legacy/established way (base10) would be better.  I could live with leading 0's, but that's messy when someone it "talking the problem over" with another.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email