[DNSOP] nsec3-parameters opinions gathered

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Thu, 04 November 2021 22:44 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 1551B3A0D63 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 15:44:28 -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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zLFZRqg6Hv5B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 15:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (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 163853A0D62 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 15:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AB60B224C6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 15:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 15:44:24 -0700
Message-ID: <ybl7ddnr16f.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (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/ZpIq7d8ZmrvXaQuWUPSCdhcwIBA>
Subject: [DNSOP] nsec3-parameters opinions gathered
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: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 22:44:28 -0000

Folks,

I was waiting for the last discussion to die down (and then, um, for me
to finally examine the opinions).  The results are in from the people
that weighed in:

  | who              | wants | accepts                    |
  |------------------+-------+----------------------------|
  | Peter van Dijk   |     0 | anything low               |
  | Matthijs Mekking |   150 | 150 -- vendors implemented |
  | Miek Gieben      |   100 | or lower                   |
  | Paul Vixie       |     0 |                            |
  | Vladimír Čunát   |   any |                            |
  | Viktor Dukhovni  |     0 | 100 or 150                 |

I think the consensus is "everyone wants low", but most are willing to
accept any value up to 150.

The most important sticking point is there are 4 implementations (thank
you for the links Matthijs) that have implemented 150.  Since DNSOP
strives for implementations of specs, I think this is the number we
should publish *unless the vendors speak up and say they'll drive lower*.

150 is higher than almost everyone would ideally like, and zero would
certainly be a nice target.  But without implementation...

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI