IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call [draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 06 October 2016 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 AC4C4129446 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:59:37 -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] 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 uuJ8sNANbPc6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (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 0AB6E129416 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id AC4AA31C90; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:59:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E4248EC0B04; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:58:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 21:58:16 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Message-ID: <20161006195816.GA20784@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <CAHw9_iJrgF3w-=0e8XbBLbDNPN9Nyuw15WS7AcZO5LbzBLKR8A@mail.gmail.com> <20161004192237.15135.qmail@ary.lan> <CA+nkc8CNx9-ROWkV8gs5N5+Pjw1NJb8qQ3DPXAxDUC5+mJv-=w@mail.gmail.com> <20161006163735.GA18000@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610061248310.47126@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610061248310.47126@ary.qy>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/HyEV8DEzIO2f1wY-sK6M4dItLqY>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call [draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 19:59:37 -0000

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 01:47:28PM -0400,
 John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote 
 a message of 34 lines which said:

> It still seems to me that the time to add the wildcards back in
> would be less than the time to do two separate documents.  Unless
> there's some reason that this needs to be published in a hurry,

Not for me, I'm fine with a delay (there have been many important
changes between -02 and -03, during the WGLC, so, some time to digest
and study them may be worth it).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email