Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: KSK-Sentinal: Once more down the naming rathole.

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Thu, 22 February 2018 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 B5F5612E87B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:38:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
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 52AAAVHbm6Di for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545891242F5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id y19so6718008lfd.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:38:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sdyBnYwVmN2z9IPLUY5mmEIDY8AkazT2GYa6zW686rU=; b=HuoY3YCWkKFnClnncdEzJ+ZwKifp3ntqTIh2Y1DBAd0ocsPG0PGCp+qEgz52k84yKy Jbf7tO025kuzaVqDk5ujbuz5D0AZzVxGEmoiI4riTBAZy0hu0hdBiLl+FSQ2+YAu8WgP vh88+Z1ttu99gJ/cq9R7Ehr5MkyNo6FV2U1pw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sdyBnYwVmN2z9IPLUY5mmEIDY8AkazT2GYa6zW686rU=; b=HOZ7NJxRNngpqYxM48UG7mfHGYFtdWuhlhFjmLE4Q41VfUorWi/en5AJxI52KBw/61 m+z8CDeupCK2JkuCoQeCupDcoPvCyEf5bEjANGlMesFmU7ij8EDk1KkeQXOln/PtV4Z/ ndSqiQrFZ6hOcjTuuwQ9KHR8H63qBCN7aS20nsXiio/X4Xa1L8bi9UUBYMHHmO0NbZdK a1KhOMPxASzyazeOu3mbkqscyaxJVPbgw2VOhIabylCGYXjoxQDVAPvDvLZnLVOT1Tjj abi27lpYE5X3LVoE7540JUpvMQapC6SuCIc9jhIVyRtQUpDNh9WXgSxVbWOgGiCjv0MG PqWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAyAWWDaAwPdazJZqGeizf55nMYzemHeOQzBKBk81gW868ijnmN K7xVI9HND2bt72OQMh2YyzDNdymcWiAjFXk5j+SRpQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226l+zUYkzRaYmza9pJyMOp9Vt1jjFasAHC/HqQmuHx7Snn9GCKJgA1HEFQZOu4RoxeMdvUiSsi0ISi6r8yViW8=
X-Received: by 10.46.73.81 with SMTP id b17mr4431956ljd.144.1519295936319; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:38:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:38:55 -0800
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
References: <CAHw9_iLqEerV-So7704qu7A2mbD6YQbzdF8A3FEGtUPOE+6NWw@mail.gmail.com> <DC8845C9-6329-4A02-97F9-45C991726F71@vpnc.org> <CA+nkc8D6zbVMJmntTtEub0iLSB=3Qf8khMu6VibOGrDM55oXpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhMdTPLdVVFCdRTzr9B3sZKGcf0D2pw6C80+V18GqX_=K-2ag@mail.gmail.com> <41098C27-BA7F-4B47-9C97-6536CD353665@verisign.com> <8632B472-F466-4E1F-827D-549167B51DA1@icann.org> <3478d544-ebef-3af3-7e8d-19804199fc0c@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <3478d544-ebef-3af3-7e8d-19804199fc0c@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:38:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTN+TBHyr-RbLUscxKLR364bhcVYi=s1DUgLJhKvNFzNiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OEFdwtrCpys8y80pzRMvBJvYnwA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: KSK-Sentinal: Once more down the naming rathole.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:39:00 -0000

Hi Petr,

> On Feb 22, 2018, at 04:03, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:
>
> I would prefer decimal for user-friendliness, and zero padding to make
> implementation easier and faster.

A few people now have mentioned that they like zero padding. What is
it about zero padding or fixed-size labels that makes implementation
easier than specifying no zero padding?

Since zero padding for key tags is not generally seen anywhere else it
seems more consistent (and hence perhaps less error-prone) to specify
no zero padding in labels.


Joe