Re: [DNSOP] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: (with COMMENT)

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Tue, 24 May 2022 16:23 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 D8DE3C1B92AF; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EG20p0vSqnAl; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A164C1B92B7; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.9]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C0388206E1; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
References: <165220448399.21295.16946574580416938307@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:23:07 -0700
In-Reply-To: <165220448399.21295.16946574580416938307@ietfa.amsl.com> (Francesca Palombini via Datatracker's message of "Tue, 10 May 2022 10:41:23 -0700")
Message-ID: <yblwneazyqc.fsf@wd.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NkhehJrNmIcXRGckceP2zx-0hto>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Tue, 24 May 2022 16:23:08 -0000

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> writes:

Hi Francesca,

> Before reading Alvaro's comment, I was going to bring up that the following
> paragraph in Section 3.2 could be confusing for a reader who is aware of the
> "Updates" RFC header.
> 
>    Note that this specification updates [RFC5155] by significantly
>    decreasing the requirements originally specified in Section 10.3 of
>    [RFC5155].  See the Security Considerations for arguments on how to
>    handle responses with non-zero iteration count.
> 
> I see that Alvaro is questioning if this doc should actually update 5155, I
> personally don't have a strong opinion, and don't think it is absolutely
> necessary, although I am curious to hear if there has been discussion in the
> community about it. In any case I think it would be good to rephrase the above
> paragraph to avoid saying that this doc updates 5155 when it doesn't.

I think all of these issues have been taken care by adding an Updates
clause, and mentioned in other threads.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI