IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 21 March 2022 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
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 E3CE83A1CF0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 07:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 Gb61l78WIL2N for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E8403A1B02 for <DNSOP@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 07:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8937.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-8937.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.137.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4408F242154C; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:42:25 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <c9493050-5602-8b06-f3f5-9d018840640a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:42:23 +0000
Cc: DNSOP@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F19441A9-44BE-423E-89A9-42844B469DA3@rfc1035.com>
References: <3035599f-bcb9-b753-54bc-32f61683a0e5@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <2F644929-3B97-4375-9458-7A64B2E17B04@nohats.ca> <e8781ae3-8cfa-1de7-abab-85fe4962b3db@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <416D39CB-DDD6-45D9-9D59-F2B777EAED5F@rfc1035.com> <c9493050-5602-8b06-f3f5-9d018840640a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/V4_5cLiX5Aw2U2PgApkdahSUYAw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:43:20 -0000


> On 21 Mar 2022, at 14:36, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> How can you say I must provide some draft for some protocol by
> myself even though an alternative of DNS cookie already is an rfc?

Modulo the IETF's code of conduct, I can say whatever I like - as can you or anyone else.

If you're saying DNS cookies are the answer, there's nothing more to say on this thread. Goodbye.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email