Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Fri, 06 April 2018 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.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 BD0F81201FA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.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 Uyg3em-5elw0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 574C51200FC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z143-v6so700410lff.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 07:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kyHGktlCnAp70UTmV+4a+R+ZTze37c4Y+NN/3RZv2E4=; b=jVsGPYZfF6FsVjwmK7YKOJO7EaT8qPJxhh04rGKjp/PFTa9EMRhGZGPQfPZIAb6RsY fQ7oZhXXbEETKwYhql7eJfEjuMovZFvPQ1IDgLqt6UkdsPS6J3+F7Dd4Chstxx7EnF0G HISItfHiWSGUSILr4b3XEd9OBbJMFIwzZiL9s=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kyHGktlCnAp70UTmV+4a+R+ZTze37c4Y+NN/3RZv2E4=; b=bA0wi1iKDPp50GazUfWz+SEjJLFJyhtkXqKdG6Rtz9tRIXZcV29EJhZDqTMIHsXsll 6+12JYyQJzK9M/r8GSo9v1BCHzxXlfbV2fdt9eb1lVc37yfD/pkm1FA0QrgsQQZWNxYJ bj4Py/OShwK2GXrzhg9dZwt3HgSMTM198IvsIzR0YKmqJkYzEcblgyDViYY2TwFrwRtw FBMLElAn/yqn6Ry+RdX98Otuti9HRlQ2hp0FAixVKVPiOLel3Po0Es9ZFgSE+2cBSdah P6oNbZX5LENVXHFj5/eBAow/zXxEYZM4p3N+exeGN7wKIruhiQZ40f7tvVuYM+AiWQiR ZWqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAroLxRAM4xPCsxJaoL1s25IyrLWR+EDO2uilGgWLKZ4zxEWus0 emLDjhC4wxN5bxNbqhIKyI9d24K6wDEqCskxO7yVGw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48kHDNtl3WXs/GdETDGapfpcRp/asDoJYE6I9FRqZhPOFtExIQtuzbyitrc6C3cRGu8oDfDIeVk6Ci4qOhu0O4=
X-Received: by 10.46.151.213 with SMTP id m21mr16511331ljj.31.1523023231510; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 07:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:00:30 -0700
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
References: <CADyWQ+EE9YCCM03wKvd-HefpoQVqhOfeeLKLV8L2LJj+tqmEzA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC936z-4j8e+d7bvhfr_Mk8tk64tkuiRDTRtrqrBTJBKJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLgTvPHe5jeL-0QZJ4+cxes8bBpCEULuDKThpjXoKzrbA@mail.gmail.com> <20180406134501.GC49550@vurt.meerval.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180406134501.GC49550@vurt.meerval.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:00:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTNp9ovt5fh4VikJdiOfMB+ZcNLgPS+N7-h9Vq3F3k6qQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/93AJyFDNIdNiMPkOHpvzQDsQXaI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:00:36 -0000

On Apr 6, 2018, at 09:45, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:

> While you are right that it is useful to define what is required for
> what sort of document, but I'd like to observe that at this moment, we
> are looking at a draft with 0 (zero, null, nada) implementations*, and
> also no implementation report draft which stipulates what should be
> tested. So your specific question is perhaps somewhat moot. Whatever the
> answer is, it will be larger than zero.

I feel that I'm a reasonably pragmatic person and I am not generally
in favour of boiling the ocean when all we were asked for was an
ISO-standard cup of tea.

However, I think it's worth reflecting on what happens when we don't
have a firm grip on protocol compliance in related implementations --
we get the kind of confusion that resulted from RFC8145. Although that
confusion has numerous root causes, we know for a fact that
variability in implementation has contributed to the madness.

The purpose of this particular draft is to facilitate useful
measurements that will yield a clear signal. I don't imagine the
authors of the draft are any more eager to see a noisy signal than the
rest of us.

If we can make it easier for implementations to behave reliably and
predictably e.g. by specifying what compliance means, I regardless of
the formal requirements of the working group, perhaps we should.


Joe