Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Fri, 22 November 2019 06:42 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 E68EC120044 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:42:21 -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 Bbym_y8phoJx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA1F61200DE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [128.9.16.40]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 259E92DB72; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:42:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <yblzhgpwwit.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CAHbrMsBR6LZ880RXPDW2L+c_gcC6Tpg+L_c78OZvxJs4Gc4pUQ@mail.gmail.com> <yblv9rdwrm3.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <yblr221wr4s.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <eaaaebc7-751f-0d55-4f5c-759d61144cc3@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:42:12 -0800
In-Reply-To: <eaaaebc7-751f-0d55-4f5c-759d61144cc3@nic.cz> ("Petr Špaček"'s message of "Thu, 21 Nov 2019 10:19:37 +0100")
Message-ID: <yblftigwgxn.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (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/M6qDUGVCsygYV8_NNtIPHa3bcXA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit
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, 22 Nov 2019 06:42:22 -0000

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> writes:

> I will provide the opposite opinion:
> DP bit is not *needed* for EDE.
> 
> If I'm proven wrong in future we can specify DP bit in a separate
> document and update EDE RFC.

That's actually what we did Petr (DP is in a separate draft and may or
may not even try for adoption).  But thanks, your voice matches what
looks to be the rest to the norm.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI