Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call [draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 06 October 2016 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 5AD4012972B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 FFm4skd_IAEB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (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 8A58512972D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 441DA31C90; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:41:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 33C0CEC0B04; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:37:35 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:37:35 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Message-ID: <20161006163735.GA18000@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <CAHw9_iJrgF3w-=0e8XbBLbDNPN9Nyuw15WS7AcZO5LbzBLKR8A@mail.gmail.com> <20161004192237.15135.qmail@ary.lan> <CA+nkc8CNx9-ROWkV8gs5N5+Pjw1NJb8qQ3DPXAxDUC5+mJv-=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8CNx9-ROWkV8gs5N5+Pjw1NJb8qQ3DPXAxDUC5+mJv-=w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SqADNC_RlJnhMLeIs3wCMc9O_-0>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call [draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]
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: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 16:41:10 -0000

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:04:25PM -0400,
 Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> wrote 
 a message of 68 lines which said:

> > I'd rather you keep it [positive answers]
> >
> > +1
> Keep the positive, rather than writing a separate RFC for that later.

Why not but, in that case, this would send back the document for
several weeks, since the text about positive answers in -02 was very
limited and unclear (dropping it, like -03 did, is easier.)

It is not just a matter of "keeping positive answers", it is a matter
of "seriously studying the case of positive answers, which was
neglected in the previous discussions".