Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Sat, 04 February 2017 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.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 02F161295FD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:14:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 zwtfkaeAqMlo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (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 53DF01295F9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v23so63353042qtb.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:14:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BVm/pCaXJpMni23ytcOUgFw7DKOlbXrPss3tzoePbII=; b=WqYvp0mPvfBhJ1dzM77j2SZnkepfh45eQh9asRlo6VXbA27ec28GX73/wGlTfv/HtB AM6buSzN2cDatIH/VnZoXweDecREl9SYJ0rf4lbmv+JlSDxtOBuBGY8rGKOD5HJqEojC J0Evy05Y7MNuS4qs7yl6nG8Dz8/rmPS1M2YjYgoP+njslFfFlA8I6fMZfW6BEM0m+mbF bzY3frwMP9ERSmPaMgEhW5HaOQ1+/HEOV68KEb3r1Wfgu0JEUI+isijGduNhtIgBJ4zc jTuDjW6sijfOwQJJYOAgfilpcmEIHkgKC3Jso0DP76sK0qPCYub6nfT/4eptz07hxlk1 km1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=BVm/pCaXJpMni23ytcOUgFw7DKOlbXrPss3tzoePbII=; b=OTwnyNAqvdR1S8qQobNwmluVSy3EEjSmYHodTFTTp+/WNMKO1BGPiYrSuY7txivJ6e HBXnlJjstubg/oWYK8kTDPnfFa/x1K49i7SkbAVgSKu14I0LgMhEWKq/CFoS2V6952HX 3SR3791xdRYOhpMQqgiW1R5nxqtoor2vuQNdpARCWgU3aO+QWfkzqeyc4yV92hXDzX+D wB9FtqKQrV30vGLt7+JjazYC8afQsoDkso1kmOVF5oquy2ni2ipcEYJ+4u5xOLhEnPmc hPqdcVC2/UYlUcIQNFSbXJecNQpeq8++01Y2clHzAwOJXXvovc1rMpov6jeaX7TT+RuV HrYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l/rL2QCoWDIyQiwlgZESxDg9XPizjYMrHkOYqfEQRVgraB7OhorWkSoqEh4gMghNPWKMV/GvgLQNt1W9up
X-Received: by 10.237.63.28 with SMTP id p28mr69447qtf.263.1486174474217; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:14:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.179.19 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:14:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148616456120.4133.8494448927223938318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148616456120.4133.8494448927223938318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:14:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iKYkZNG=JLSUbCVpsrmkupFM6635eMHJsQXDWcLJmLgKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PZbFC3kRt3UJLlAdewYiJTZyFrY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 02:14:37 -0000

Hi all,

Was and I have updated this document to make it clearer and more
readable. Please take a read and let us know if any parts are unclear,
if you have any other feedback, etc.

Is this close to done?
W

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:29 PM,  <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Warren Kumari and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations
> Revision:       02
> Title:          Security Considerations for RFC5011 Publishers
> Document date:  2017-02-02
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          8
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes the math behind the minimum time-length that
>    a DNS zone publisher must wait before using a new DNSKEY to sign
>    records when supporting the RFC5011 rollover strategies.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf