IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Reserved field in draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-04.txt

"Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dwessels@verisign.com>
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 1B337130DDB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verisign.com
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 AonIvMmlrWJa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.verisign.com (mail1.verisign.com [72.13.63.30]) (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 70E2E127148 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verisign.com; l=5839; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1540375035; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version:subject; bh=S28Phwn2lYzLQEmD9hxB8bDCP0Jb+FMqWhHXa+LIVFw=; b=To59e6g7944F5xd6Nqra5THRvWYYF1P+U5rY/qiMw9/unbSX0QtOWNpD BWNfLbVCHoye4FEpO2gzSrgFN8rpdN7xX4LxLtFPTFpxdsJDbjSs/q6sA pfmnYUDjQCLAqdKpsYnm3aaPC9DL+/gEnVPctNmRsJl+YwCJSidSRIclT I0JheK/ByWiKYkM9PLcr2d8ZlFYBdeyINPfEygwHfOKq+HPfi2mt3hHXD CCI5aLBtHHhQ7uSlDpgebrAzy0FBvigtfU1LuQTWC2WC1+/ZuVVRDhOWt i0NG0n8CG/aDXanzf03tT4k4+oOKQRLuCpztugxGlE4t3zyef6JA0jWgp Q==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.54,420,1534809600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="8470363"
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23: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
X-IPAS-Result: A2EPAAC9QNBb/zGZrQpjGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBVAIBAQEBCwGEEQqaKJkSCAQBhGwCgyw3Cg0BAwEBAQEBAQIBAQKBEYI2JAGCYAEBAQECAXkFCwIBCBguAjAlAgQOBQ6DEwGBeah/hTuEWw+CbYkMgUI+gREnH4JMiDKCJgKeYAMGAoQQgW+LDoFShHWJcJZRAgQCBAUCFIFZgXhwFWUBgkGQV2+LI4EfAQE
Received: from BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.48) by BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1531.3; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:57:13 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::a89b:32d6:b967:337d]) by BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::a89b:32d6:b967:337d%5]) with mapi id 15.01.1531.003; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:57:13 -0400
From: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
CC: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] [DNSOP] Reserved field in draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUax4hlVKKWxh0kUC7lDX5V+iFBqUubLAA
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:57:13 +0000
Message-ID: <528A0D4B-B06F-42A6-B133-39E96FD5C902@verisign.com>
References: <154020795105.15126.7681204022160033203@ietfa.amsl.com> <3AED6137-0957-4EEE-B317-7178B00AB7CF@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <3AED6137-0957-4EEE-B317-7178B00AB7CF@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.170.148.18]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E84638DE-EF91-485C-91E2-6F2789F066A8"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/HD6CAusec5GM8a_MeUGf06h7bGQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Reserved field in draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-04.txt
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:57:17 -0000


> On Oct 24, 2018, at 12:16 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Section 5 says:
> 
>   FOR DISCUSSION: The authors are willing to remove the Reserved field
>   from this specification if the working group would prefer it.  It
>   would mean, however, that a future version of this protocol designed
>   to efficiently support large, dynamic zones would most likely require
>   a new RR type.
> 
> Please strongly consider removing the Reserved field so that designing an way to do a message digest over a dynamic zone can be done independently.
> 
> Quite frankly, if the Reserved field isn't there and it's clear that this is for complete zones, I see no reason why this should even be considered experimental. The mic line at the presentation at the recent DNS-OARC seems to agree with wanting this for real, as soon as possible.


Thanks for the feedback, Paul.

Personally I feel like keeping the Reserved field is potentially useful in the future, but harmless if it never gets used. Can you say more about why keeping it prevents independent work?

I would be very happy with standards track, but to the extent the WG is skeptical I would settle for experimental at this time.

DW

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email