Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-pwouters-powerbind

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Mon, 27 April 2020 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 C569E3A08B1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 9wwCH7lR5VCq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 704273A08E1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F1E5C2FA2A; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Petr =?utf-8?B?xaBwYcSNZWs=?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+FLrTy0gy8iCyAPsDpiumDNQHX4TGPni43ThA=W3fmZew@mail.gmail.com> <c46c57f7-f99c-526c-cefc-8c385061f875@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:44:30 -0700
In-Reply-To: <c46c57f7-f99c-526c-cefc-8c385061f875@nic.cz> ("Petr =?utf-8?B?xaBwYcSNZWsiJ3M=?= message of "Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:45:38 +0200")
Message-ID: <ybl8sig8xqp.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VmEjPs7kdw2_C3rm93UqlidfSdE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-pwouters-powerbind
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, 27 Apr 2020 20:44:42 -0000

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> writes:

> I support adoption under condition that the envisioned "DNSSEC
> Transparency" mechanism is documented and somewhat tested before
> "powerbind" draft progresses into form of RFC.

So that statement makes the point that there is no point in the document
except for DNSSEC Transparency.  I'm not sure that's true (and I'm going
to work on a better intro that hopefully may clarify things).

But implementation is pretty much a requirement in dnsop for anything
new; so implementation of the bit would certainly be needed (by both
client and sender).  But, IMHO, it shouldn't be tied to a larger topic's
(DNSSEC Transparency) implementation.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI