IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with COMMENT)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 05 October 2021 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@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 1EA213A0FD2; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 OSI3UOH4Srfe; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D3303A0FD3; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 195EgGSN009327 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:42:17 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.922.13; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:16 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0922.013; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:16 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHXuA5iZ0wQ9agWUUysVf2t/Qq//qvB78KAgAI3SACAAAZIgIAAxkqA
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 14:42:15 +0000
Message-ID: <AC6AFF12-280F-4408-86D2-02FA79810A08@icann.org>
References: <163323498843.11274.9452563933880073914@ietfa.amsl.com> <52AEFA9E-5F08-45BF-8825-F50F43C86AF5@icann.org> <CAL0qLwbmai=FgVxbuQc1mkNGTHeqMMwOZArT6S8m098neZA1tQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+G1Mw4ZdufXgOBuCA1XS=0TA1JCtK_mW=fRAEU76Woucw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+G1Mw4ZdufXgOBuCA1XS=0TA1JCtK_mW=fRAEU76Woucw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_878E4E67-FD65-4FFB-8E93-6FB5F2BFE3C4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-10-05_02:2021-10-04, 2021-10-05 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ANp1Ya9maHhEpw4WvZz_AAaKFzo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 14:42:24 -0000

On Oct 4, 2021, at 7:52 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't a mention of RFC8624 be relevant in this case? 
> (I'm thinking https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8624.html#page-5 [rfc-editor.org])

It would be, but it would also be relevant in other IANA registries as well. Other protocols also have 8624-like RFCs, and therefore they might useful to mention in the associated crypto registries. If the IESG wants to expand what goes into IANA registries to include "see also" type references for security, I think that it should be done uniformly, and the effort should be led by the IESG, not the narrow Internet Draft where someone noticed the issue.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email