IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] rfc4641bis: NSEC vs NSEC3.

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 23 February 2010 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0698D28C485 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:27:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLG3q+EpksFu for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4699E28C209 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gyg13 with SMTP id 13so292346gyg.31 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:29:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.91.51.19 with SMTP id d19mr3597855agk.101.1266884972715; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:29:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201002230024.o1N0O2jg068119@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <201002220022.o1M0M3qR048760@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4B82897F.7080000@nlnetlabs.nl> <9C97F5BFBD540A6242622CC7@Ximines.local> <20100222161251.GA99592@isc.org> <FD83B7A9-583C-4E6C-9301-414D043DBB08@dnss.ec> <20100222172325.GC99592@isc.org> <EC6B9B3F-4849-403D-B533-8CE6114575EA@dnss.ec> <20100222195938.GA13437@isc.org> <d3aa5d01002221233i79604481sfe2ad8ba4d7f1ab0@mail.gmail.com> <201002230024.o1N0O2jg068119@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:29:32 -0800
Message-ID: <d3aa5d01002221629m122ee0d5j210e70814fc13016@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org, Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] rfc4641bis: NSEC vs NSEC3.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 23 Feb 2010 00:27:36 -0000

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <d3aa5d01002221233i79604481sfe2ad8ba4d7f1ab0@mail.gmail.com>, Eric R
> escorla writes:
>> Well, IMO we shouldn't have addressed this in RFC 5155 either. It falls
>> into the category of "basic assumptions"
>
> Basic assumptions should be noted.

Should we also note the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? general relativity?
The law of the excluded middle?

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email