Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance

No, I want B. That CDS and CDNSKEY is staying in the zone.

  Patrik

On 12 apr 2014, at 00:11, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

> [ Apologies all - I initially sent this with no subject line.
> Resending. Hopefully this makes things clearer... Also, unless we hear
> strong objections I'm planning on doing what Patrik and Matthijs
> suggested, option A ]
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>> Hi there all,
>> 
>> At the moment this document says that the child SHOULD remove the
>> CDS/CDNSKEY record once the parent has consumed / acted on it (this
>> behavior was requested by someone -- unfortunately I cannot remember
>> whom).
>> 
>> I *think* that I'm hearing that folk would prefer that the child
>> SHOULD leave it in, or, less strongly MAY remove it.
>> 
>> This (IMO) makes the doc and the child's life simpler, but potentially
>> makes a bit more work for the parent -- currently most of the
>> time the parent will see no CDS, and so will go back to sleep. If the
>> child leaves them around, the parent will need to check them against
>> what is currently published and take action if they differ.
>> 
>> Can folk please let us know if they would prefer:
>> A: The child SHOULD remove the CDS/CDNSKEY RR from the zone once the
>> parent has published it (currently documented behavior) or
>> 
>> B: The child SHOULD NOT remove the CDS/CDNSKEY RR (will require a
>> small edit to the doc)
>> 
>> My personal preference is for B - it seems more elegant, but (as
>> always) we'll do whatever the WG wants.
>> 
>> W
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance - should child remove the CDS RR?

Attachment: signature.asc