IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Thu, 27 April 2023 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 D0FACC1519A3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20221208.gappssmtp.com
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 cBxdykunOyOL for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 4CD0FC15199E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-38be107e467so3100286b6e.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1682634410; x=1685226410; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hO+sASLSeOneWFbLfFcYUt9Svphx/92fB+sBUaEhWXI=; b=UvFUziFgZK5cwwj0bioiGuxF60IOkW4rTpqBmZcYNABKkqrObaaWjTgE64GTxbCVw4 pvOlygtdk8HClkLwbvjJTQkWfSF0hfUO4+U/xbdE8MJSxGGQpZ7V37vK3udUrqMiuSnE IVaRt6oGogGsSATe+nH/9PeqISNLqJQ73FGbNzUU6dcaKzHUK1dqEzZt1mGla6TfIRdO PAqrfajlUz6Qn4ceLleKywraYT9riL5kTQfjmaApUThLO/YXRotHhgjYrTvWobZrx7/s wufZaol7ln+I+gq9LbtPP0PvjGHrLpgy7GvmDhDpQ5r54PLg2MPgGv/st5myYwRee7lC 6sLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682634410; x=1685226410; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=hO+sASLSeOneWFbLfFcYUt9Svphx/92fB+sBUaEhWXI=; b=hGtlRssKMp3P0eWBxDKG0zp2iAcqv2fgYP/eDHf2cGgHlgCC8RR+5xisnbB6vxs1ts F97MrIYwBEO7VpSRpqYVHSy+CjifL6kFX0myrmvrxmjhturcihgScfawRxEVWiZXtMW+ xbYLCdFObN2H/7dUIRPl+y7ozHHglzV5t84ff9g2klTR9+9Vdf3jlGVwzZGmo94oLo6v whJLKME7S8vqVB/vxNqYr+MO8ZDrQgIwtabIQ6xBoLFxqKgLUkZ4Xu+0l5ds8RNLpGtF x5EqawYJp7U/7yDzuluKCPJN4E/gf3jLZ7OrUs1wA1BoGMqbsFZvSZsuUZgZU0vdPCtC DotA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxTwfLwD/cBIRw/mNRw/nTPNjOJW6rkjGMzdKk79M+EtSpma32s 6IqT02jqJFanGYZLH0FcT2SSYrvUIX3z0ljBq6ZE7/B9wlE9Gpey
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7/xiFtAHpDvFdtxDr8g5YGJybbV97mjK9AiImwXLx2Mfz/I1fvDvji5XFuESux2Ln2qlvSNuAl39A/YX/uLxc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:8ca:b0:387:5d7b:8606 with SMTP id k10-20020a05680808ca00b003875d7b8606mr1341766oij.57.1682634409890; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f5757414-dd3b-8a09-f945-d73cecf556a3@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <f5757414-dd3b-8a09-f945-d73cecf556a3@NLnetLabs.nl>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:26:38 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn3sZLc=PWj0AuyO0cN8BBdnvRCwdTC7HAjsMBOv3vvZVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl>
Cc: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/T0y_HM5nhEVTUK0DzWN8c2ZMAFA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 27 Apr 2023 22:26:55 -0000

I prefer option 2. I think it fulfills the implicit obligations
inherent in 1) -which would be to fill the hole of uncertainty. Its
succinct, and it covers the cases I think define the condition.

I would ask if 2) also needs to define ".. or cannot be resolved"
because "[or not at all]" is a bit wide to encompass "that FQDN didn't
actually resolve" for a listed NS. As it stands it seems to terminate
in a belief you have something to ask. It's equally lame to be pointed
to this.name.hasnt.been.delegated.alt. as an NS

Irrespective I prefer 2). I don't like the dangling fate of 1) I think
the lack of agreement is only conditionally true: I think we could
reach consensus on 2) if we tried a bit harder.

-G

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email