Re: [DNSOP] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Tue, 24 May 2022 16:01 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 EFC24C19E858; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:08 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uBCaGkTSozx8; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 F2589C19E857; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.9]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5AFE020686; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Andrew Alston via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, Andrew Alston <andrew-ietf@liquid.tech>, draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
References: <165234915463.59217.4764646487635997106@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <165234915463.59217.4764646487635997106@ietfa.amsl.com> (Andrew Alston via Datatracker's message of "Thu, 12 May 2022 02:52:34 -0700")
Message-ID: <ybl35gy3oot.fsf@wd.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/X3UkeJk4iIlu6-JW02PdK7t0-h4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Tue, 24 May 2022 16:01:09 -0000

Hi Andrew,

Sorry for the delay.

Andrew Alston via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> writes:

> I've been sitting trying to work out in my mind if a BCP document should be
> requesting code points - and if I should change the position from a no
> objection to a discuss - and the more I think about this - I feel that a
> discuss here is probably the right option.

My understanding is that the IESG resolved this DISCUSS during the IESG
meeting and that it's to remain a BCP.

> Having read through the document, I would also like to support Paul's discuss
> since the document does seem to update RFC5155.  I also would like to second
> what Murray said about it seeming a little strange to see a BCP document
> updating a standards track document.

The next version will indeed have an update clause.

> Finally - I was a little surprised to see IANA actions in a document
> entitled "guidance for...." - not sure if anyone else agrees with me,
> but it seems strange to see a BCP document requesting IANA actions

So the IANA action is asking for an EDE code point.  I believe this was
also resolved in the IESG teleconference too.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI