Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 01 February 2018 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 A2CF912D945 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:57:00 -0800 (PST)
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] 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 thCHF4oG5j0L for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 5DA9912EB9F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.138] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w11KuY1M016848 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:56:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [10.32.60.138]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:56:51 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <D5D013D4-1EAD-434B-863A-29CB1BBEF4E4@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <74C0CA59-6D53-4A60-ACBA-4AF5B51FE3FF@apnic.net>
References: <CAHw9_iKnD4WtTKyof=nm4ChmDZ5mAPqA7a_-m1t_Lauugf4Uow@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1801251505070.5022@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iJ-gwC1ZoWQ3YiJraD3eoUf-9-Ay--rPYzy1zWYUzvYmg@mail.gmail.com> <FDCED4D6-A7CE-465B-8344-CA89753ADF19@vpnc.org> <74C0CA59-6D53-4A60-ACBA-4AF5B51FE3FF@apnic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YdegEFgVN9al88vy5l7sCLRYx1I>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 01 Feb 2018 20:57:01 -0000

On 1 Feb 2018, at 12:20, Geoff Huston wrote:

> What about if the sentinel spec proposes to use a left-most label of 
> the form(s):
>
>     xm—-is-ta-[key]
>
> and
>
>    xm—-not-ta-[key]
>
>
> would this form of hostname be a reasonable way forward?

This was discussed in a different thread in the WG a few days ago, and a 
few of us had objections and alternate proposals.

--Paul Hoffman