IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements

Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io> Thu, 15 December 2022 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@desec.io>
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 1B103C14CF13 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:06:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=a4a.de
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 thOYERbz8tm6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.a4a.de (mail.a4a.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:10a:1d5c:8000::8]) (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 6C70DC14CE22 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:06:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=a4a.de; s=20170825; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=HAx/JT6xaDlcNuH4yVSXiDy9eg6U8+wkm91zmkuN7AQ=; b=erQpEv6wFu191SE5KMyc/OnJjT TAqZunSulCiL2VmlN94hcLYRnjA5N66LIjO3Gzt5gZ/6Yl/3fR0y4lbMX0tXOMmH811WK5sduLhFD 4yms4WB1InCTWjr6e7rEM6ZxET8TkWzCCMwaIU+HPLo99r5o5/m9Edchvljx5Ocxljg/lMwbN6/K5 znuP9ZQgym/DGiraSnVDEQTLCC7jnYpasE9D6ISOeOOPki38BSLcyVRKEhRTxX8B3VlnFVu+O2y4d H3sTW91fdf8h4YuP9Fsw2rKPoVJsRgVp0eLufRbNDHJpxGxHuQSMXX8ZFk0xMhaDPU/aUT7cWrX9l Sz37AmQA==;
Received: from [2a00:20:6010:3dea:ef1:df8e:3c0a:7aba] by mail.a4a.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <peter@desec.io>) id 1p5osL-0004Ck-Pl for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:06:17 +0100
Message-ID: <622469e5-2368-7063-9438-9e6f81c418f0@desec.io>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:06:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+FwRaSdpSWXBDqCG9ZPNPiG4pGUx37PVtExbqVPr5ZfmA@mail.gmail.com> <e8f3d519-9152-4caf-1fe0-d5e509ca4802@desec.io> <2c0c7853-7b3c-6a80-3a2a-664c76f91a8e@nic.cz>
From: Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io>
In-Reply-To: <2c0c7853-7b3c-6a80-3a2a-664c76f91a8e@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UyZxSG9lkrSYztePuAcbAdZUQmI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements
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, 15 Dec 2022 14:06:35 -0000

On 12/15/22 15:01, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
> On 15/12/2022 14.45, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>> In what sense is this document "informational" when it is called "validator requirements", or, conversely, in what sense does it spell out "requirements" when it is only "informational" and not "standards track"? 
> 
> The current *title* says "Recommendations".  I don't think the draft name matters much, especially after it becomes an RFC.

Apologies. I was suffering from the misconception / misreading that the words from the draft name are also in the title. -- Of course, the name is irrelevant.

Thank you for clarifying, Vladimír!

Best,
Peter

-- 
https://desec.io/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email