[DNSOP]Re: [IANA #1362913] expert review for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping (dns-parameters)

Hi all,

On the other hand, couldn't it actually be beneficial if the signalling 
zone name is generic enough, and if (in theory on the future) it is 
shared with possibly completely different signals, possibly unrelated to 
DNSSEC?

With this in mind, I support the signalling label _signal. Otherwise, I 
would prefer something of comparable (or even lower) length, not like 
_dnssec-signal.

Libor

Dne 21. 04. 24 v 1:38 Paul Wouters napsal(a):
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>
>> The authors certainly don't insist, but we'd need to pick a suitable 
>> replacement for the "_signal" label.
>>
>> John proposed "_dnssec-signal" elsewhere in this thread.
>>
>> The authors would like to note that adding "_dnssec-" eats up 8 more 
>> bytes, increasing chances that bootstrapping will fail due to the 
>> _dsboot.<domain-name>._dnssec-signal.<nsname> length limitation. 
>> Other than this (unnecessary?) use case narrowing, this choice seems 
>> fine.
>>
>> That said, does this choice address your concerns?
>
> It would, but I would also be okay if it is just _dnssec.
>
>> The main question then is to get implementations updated. I'm thus 
>> copying a few implementers so they can comment w.r.t. making this 
>> change in their implementation. I suppose that barring their 
>> objections, it's fine to go ahead?
>
> I feel less sympathy there because I brought this up a long time ago :)
> But also, implementations are all young and new and I think it is still
> pretty easy to change.
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop