Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel-04.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 30 January 2018 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 5DB6112F29A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:51:33 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=PGgkKcSQ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=YceRXGPe
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 OZmWvgJ6y9gN for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C1D12EC8A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A43CBE072 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:51:31 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517338291; bh=ljSHNlBXLdKrYdEpLGyPXg3W+P8bifa/4YEIJLO7LT8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PGgkKcSQyTqPOY/PIRrTmwrJi/uJrDhtvlpJYEg3Y+aRwLgoAkd+B/pGQAe6wfVzs H2ZODIZf4MqG1YOzPvfiMV6zdymMDgLJ2CRVDV5wvpqiu0myNDehYjEI2mO3W7Q08N oAIHid0YcOkac/P4RQsCcK1DqbFEDAQRXhFr8o3g=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H0vywopxKU33 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:51:30 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:51:28 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517338290; bh=ljSHNlBXLdKrYdEpLGyPXg3W+P8bifa/4YEIJLO7LT8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YceRXGPeusKuUt651g5k5D8EYtZ5Byq+t+RE5Mh6OjFuF6AdaasWXiIMEDk2y6208 Pm/q7bOgcGu/vJIoR9neZYIV79pjaJh2f1rf+9DjBuGTfmZv460iVlEXgOGO7VsRSk Ju9/zlqSwmszvffwgjPB/WOLPIbUfWpc47fHXfBc=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180130185128.GI19193@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <151062636258.5917.14497839377888768972@ietfa.amsl.com> <20180128080134.24987d69@titan.int.futz.org> <CAHw9_iLDid5-3JJ5gffdsR_PMCAEwwxB3i7ORLiBVtKwmt0khQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180129233755.3697ee79@grisu.home.partim.org> <20180130152459.GE18485@mx4.yitter.info> <9787FD03-4E91-46DC-92E0-85513D6A9B40@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9787FD03-4E91-46DC-92E0-85513D6A9B40@hopcount.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_9dgIIRe9_bGPacL37sc-lcwZRE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel-04.txt
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: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:51:33 -0000

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:42:15AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> I realise that the following is not what anybody means in this thread

Hmm.  Actually, I wasn't sure :-)

> I probably missed some. Anyway, I think when people are saying "address record" here they actually mean "IP address record".
> 

We should probably say that, then, and also of course we should fix
the poor text in the teminology document to point this out.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com