IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Thu, 16 March 2017 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.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 21A21126D74 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 oPM_xGghK_GO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time-travellers.nl.eu.org (c.time-travellers.nl.eu.org [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 614FC1250B8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:470:78c8:2:605b:3339:dc00:fc30] (helo=pallas.home.time-travellers.org) by time-travellers.nl.eu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1coQLb-0001og-Mt; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:01:23 +0000
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:00:56 +0100
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
To: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170316090056.237419b6@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+ECthEmWxDbc717BMQo_=PMxz9M0vthDxjOpNW_M7XPTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+ECthEmWxDbc717BMQo_=PMxz9M0vthDxjOpNW_M7XPTw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; boundary="Sig_/IKE93U.wz3jLhQ0/3=rPyu6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bXvD9BHz-A56idyW6_hbbgVEitI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations
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, 16 Mar 2017 08:01:06 -0000

Tim,

At 2017-03-16 03:16:50 -0400
tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a
> formal call for adoption.   If there are outstanding issues raised during
> the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those discussions.
> 
> 
> This starts a Call for Adoption for:
>  draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations
> 
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations/
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

While from a practical point of view this mostly only useful for ICANN,
it is important to document this issue so that anyone who implements
their own trust anchors understands it, and also so that future DNS
people know that the issue was considered.

I am in favor of adoption.

Cheers,

--
Shane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email