IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] nsec3-parameters opinions gathered

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Mon, 08 November 2021 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.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 4AACC3A05DE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 05:42:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 M5QwvdAj_g-4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 05:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (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 D716A3A05A7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 05:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E7E1522CB1; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 05:41:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <ybl7ddnr16f.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <206e17b4-a920-8e3e-586d-ecc29855fae3@nic.cz> <45a10ca4-93e1-3c9c-7434-83c387d5246e@NLnetLabs.nl> <4254eece-a024-dbe4-3a64-a7ff957ce945@pletterpet.nl> <ec14099d-adfe-09ae-a06c-80cc2a1cf793@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 05:41:55 -0800
In-Reply-To: <ec14099d-adfe-09ae-a06c-80cc2a1cf793@isc.org> ("Petr Špaček"'s message of "Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:07:27 +0100")
Message-ID: <ybly25yojbw.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JvrS9vtNq51SnDU-Cc5zr-HgKK4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] nsec3-parameters opinions gathered
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 13:42:03 -0000

Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org> writes:

Thanks for the detail notes Petr, very helpful.

> From my point of view the RFC does not need to stick to the value
> currently implemented in resolvers.

Good point, and maybe the right phrasing I should have used should have
been "what value would implementations refuse to switch to"?

In part, I worry that code authors would object to having just changed
something and refused to change again.  It seems like reports are
overcoming that problem though  :-)

[I'm not sure we're at zero yet...]
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status