IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Fri, 19 June 2020 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 CAFE33A0D24 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=DOHVK9KT; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=MSVE24N3
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 MWWvfllr45oS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9596E3A0C80 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C855C01DC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:20:59 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=vWlSYk3wpVwXU23Viy1tTeSJmhdaDVC EogvpMnZCeGc=; b=DOHVK9KT9PK2TYshf6uA237WiHE20wJ9FnCXBR63LjmX+U8 ZqoOMKCqv02oDNz3TMGiVwVxywDgK7O934TGsMISrOvmIOpSnsKPzgDdxOdGY5cT SbGXapcla78vnVErGCWXlWQmxU5tQ8IuFTMqYDtuqGhGGPFDbpEJsqUaO2gM/q6c i+CNMMbtdB/NvNy/jRMo6vAnx7HEf7xXTkhznbaQ71kb9h/rJRU6Axunn7RusrDE Z7lYaJrKBh/y++8V2g02T4E7qRvzdnIGWw/E2pfncFUcgrlo3tkrvPAYp4aFWF1M OOJZub3cFwLFXprKy1jnhg6XsdamDGVX1ery/ug==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=vWlSYk 3wpVwXU23Viy1tTeSJmhdaDVCEogvpMnZCeGc=; b=MSVE24N35um0bbvN2kDyZo wXlVw5fte+09F5bwE/M/6Far41ynVEfvBXtv0Cjd/DEMgE/jKt6Wu95uXRXVyZDk 1OoosSHfpAhaplvVjH/k/VhzssTzZ0bu+NmlB7xeOCXkvuAzUxVBc4zGJX1dSfZm OEs7AP2aiwkaTjzJ4+sIIYwCkmXcM3Xq6oBZUu6x639pMONIC4oslmFlOHaZlRfT D9HtyV5z+5HzbhACHVX+4jmFce4jkbgopObvMKY6IDEuuZDmMMVu4+30eoJ1lXHT 1dMWMqKQW9k8CgRVP4To1vNVzPOpUdg+APnhiDG6pNP2XfixZsmv6DYGhm425rnw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Kj3sXqmFcGkwiOB_pdSaoii29WfDmyIhgqhoT8Bx7q4ykqJU86OIpg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudejhedgkeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Kj3sXh3bwAqHNTTC2Z2gKaO7CcmGS0VRoKxzDGWrN5sBuPMnN2CGWQ> <xmx:Kj3sXoqxFfXpOg3MtEV-XgJkXs3JzLwEx-sJ-V-ZDeT-jsW8i4_OKQ> <xmx:Kj3sXun_2XOOLNWaASdzH0mG-gxsEQs9guquqFAK4Ftq6YOiOWuvUA> <xmx:Kz3sXj0gqu1iSIOPyXQ7v_fWC1RupK5Ipj3MLmgDIoeGJ08HW7UvFQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id A5FA0E00F1; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:20:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-543-gda70334-fm-20200618.004-gda703345
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <40d8663d-5f39-4900-b1c6-e78d73ebffcd@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7269525A-5376-48AA-B9DC-84BE9D84BA36@icann.org>
References: <CADyWQ+H4713BnZDntTuVW0FrO59zZ9NFJ=J=n9JFFq2zmfy2pQ@mail.gmail.com> <A930F8C6-9C33-4933-AC37-579ACEF5B325@ogud.com> <7FF83D52-F20B-4FF2-82AA-416835FCA5F4@isc.org> <CADqLbzJsJ6etv-eZuabLsMO4g+XYgktgpuP-fTNSi1cFTwdOGg@mail.gmail.com> <68eb8413-8704-40a3-9765-7eb19ebd0e78@www.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBORz-ustvXvrYaMm15rAHUfA3zR8Sr3ZscLWB6YJ6-s8w@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+EOcTWX6PrbQUmqM6=Z442bE7itFAG6No0b9MZdcARbOg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOwxO6=Qpoyk=_cDsP5G__3CfjKV8p+boGY4-9OX=Gh8w@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Ge7AmGKT3PZ9SQDkHWi9315T=xbLcx4vQ23e=4T=zmNg@mail.gmail.com> <C2C9BDB4-AA7B-47B8-8735-2A529B37B4BA@icann.org> <CADqLbzLdu-ceWDKk5aUYTe3WzAntJKh5QTncHyy137W=nyDSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <7269525A-5376-48AA-B9DC-84BE9D84BA36@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:20:37 +1000
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FISvQczXtYk3oHP7Yr9M4FNNitA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis
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: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 04:21:02 -0000

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, at 01:30, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph 
> draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", like the other 
> DNSSEC-related registries.

I think you mean "Specification Required".  RFC required has the same net effect, but the side effect being that you burden the ISE with these requests.

As long as the space of codepoints isn't too small (2^16 is fine), then I see no reason not to allow external publications request a value as long as they don't abuse the privilege.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email