IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Mon, 11 May 2015 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4181ACE05 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 dvwu9kxD-yfy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0791F1ACDFD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A9C31FCAC0; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:20:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id EF870216C1C; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:20:08 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 17:20:08 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Message-ID: <20150511172008.GA7209@isc.org>
References: <553EBF02.3050703@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc-T75k3sQZKtAF1VHp49biGn+Es5v5FivNSz5e3oB-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL9RLp0jynT0m_D6dGZYhmdonvBC-5ifTdB63eh5gvBeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqesFPG6d3UsFmtFRjUBQqfifHkaBMR0sXAaNKuN10HL4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLbx_soi1+LaSwMKarLcT1kBCrFdaX8diwMVZp70KeePA@mail.gmail.com> <20150509185028.GB74933@isc.org> <CAJE_bqcJN+RL8NF5NoLTL2y6-mpC1Maf8y_msie7MgYxkV4B3A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqcJN+RL8NF5NoLTL2y6-mpC1Maf8y_msie7MgYxkV4B3A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MAuyVWw1BZMiElPrETbYL6V5Wdc>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Mon, 11 May 2015 17:20:14 -0000

> Does this mean:
> 
> A: All implementations that conform to this document should prefer the
>    NTA over the positive anchor in such a case, or
> B: This is implementation-dependent, but if an implementation allows
>    the coexistence of positive and negative anchors, it should prefer
>    the NTA, or
> C: something else?

Good point.  I personally favor A, but would be fine with B.

I'd be interested in input from other implementors; if there's a
constituency for B then fine, but if we're all going to allow
coexistence anyway, we might as well specify it that way.

> I don't have a strong opinion between A and B, but I'd like this
> document to be clear on this.  And, if it means A, I'd use an RFC2119
> keyword (it's probably a SHOULD).

With respect to the precedence rule, I would use MUST rather than SHOULD.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email