IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] rfc4641bis: NSEC vs NSEC3.

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Wed, 24 February 2010 03:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 7C20328C19B for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, 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 vi4M+MmO-mWd for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E9C28C20A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 423 invoked by uid 399); 24 Feb 2010 03:31:41 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.145?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 24 Feb 2010 03:31:41 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <4B849D9B.5070009@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:31:39 -0800
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
References: <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> <20100222172325.GC99592@isc.org> <EC6B9B3F-4849-403D-B533-8CE6114575EA@dnss.ec> <20100222195938.GA13437@isc.org> <4B835DB6.5050203@dougbarton.us> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1002231041210.9909@newtla.xelerance.com> <4B844911.5010303@dougbarton.us> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1002231638570.18920@newtla.xelerance.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.1002231638570.18920@newtla.xelerance.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] rfc4641bis: NSEC vs NSEC3.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:29:37 -0000

On 2/23/2010 1:40 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 4641bis is "DNSSEC Operational Practices". Why add something and then
> immediatley say "SHOULD NOT be a factor"?

You snipped the bit that answered this question. The fact that very
smart people who know the protocol well even took time to discuss the
issue is (in my mind) a clear indication that the topic is worth
mentioning in a document that describes "DNSSEC Operational Practices."
By explicitly mentioning the issue, providing a clear statement that it
should not be a factor, and a reference to the details of why, we
provide a service to all of the people who do not know the subject
matter as well as we do who run the risk of being taken in by FUD.

Please keep in mind who the target audience is.


Doug

-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email