IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04.txt

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl> Tue, 10 January 2017 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
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 303D8129B31 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:58:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 ZO4Ut0DcmGjM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D39F129B29 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.19.128.50] (vpn-10-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.33]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 358C28910 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:58:07 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=pletterpet.nl
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <147792810754.32434.7815626160706350019.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f3c5f93a-c1ae-8cff-2782-6352669f4920@pletterpet.nl>
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Message-ID: <11dd4e3d-3620-a478-cee5-6be4f9b9a141@pletterpet.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:58:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f3c5f93a-c1ae-8cff-2782-6352669f4920@pletterpet.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PsRIQOtd1bxFSEEm9lfv0WaHKeE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04.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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:58:12 -0000

I see that IESG has approved this document, but I am still wondering this:

On 01-12-16 13:20, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read this again. I still wonder if in the case of DNSSEC Delete
> Algorithm it wouldn't be easier to say: In case the DNSSEC algorithm is
> 0, the Digest/Public Key MUST be ignored.
>
> This way, you don't have to change the CDS/CDNSKEY format defined in RFC
> 7344, most likely causing less problems with deployed software.

Best regards,
   Matthijs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email