IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] rfc4641bis: NSEC vs NSEC3.

Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> Tue, 23 February 2010 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <alex@alex.org.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4417E28C507 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:36:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.463, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OFmCt3qtsRvn for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:36:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.avalus.com (mail.avalus.com [89.16.176.221]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BD628C22B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:36:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.136] (87-194-71-186.bethere.co.uk [87.194.71.186]) by mail.avalus.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DA0FC5641A; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:38:42 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:39:04 +0000
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>
Message-ID: <D41FF09B9017218440FC55B6@nimrod.local>
In-Reply-To: <201002230006.o1N06oxE067928@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <20100220202751.GB54720@shinkuro.com> <20100220213133.GE2477@isc.org> <4B807DC0.9050807@ogud.com> <315AD36E-879A-4512-A6A8-B64372E3D3CF@sinodun.com> <201002220022.o1M0M3qR048760@drugs.dv.isc.org> <A8EB3AAE-0DA6-4C4E-B2D1-E548884F63D5@dnss.ec> <4B8251E9.70904@nlnetlabs.nl> <699B9362-B927-4148-B79E-2AEB6D713BE8@dnss.ec> <4B82897F.7080000@nlnetlabs.nl> <9C97F5BFBD540A6242622CC7@Ximines.local> <20100222161251.GA99592@isc.org> <FD83B7A9-583C-4E6C-9301-414D043DBB08@dnss.ec> <201002230006.o1N06oxE067928@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>, "W.C.A. Wijngaards" <wouter@NLnetLabs.nl>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] rfc4641bis: NSEC vs NSEC3.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:36:45 -0000

--On 23 February 2010 11:06:50 +1100 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

>> Drunk Sysadmins, Rouge Registrar, etc, etc.
>>
>> I'm sure that it will be a very large section.
>
> Apart from the slightly higher risk of software bugs because NSEC3
> is more complicated.  The other items have no impact of the decision
> to choose between NSEC and NSEC3 and as such are irrelevent.

Oh I don't know. I think it could be argued NSEC3 is more likely to
drive people to drink than NSEC ... :-)

-- 
Alex Bligh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email