[DNSOP] (no subject)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 11 April 2014 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D711A02EA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 KV7mxFUMtkmT for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0AC1A0299 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n12so6043174wgh.24 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=PD7/z2429qgeY5KsmrZi92LSW0csuFl+nsDVJsxX97s=; b=CdGJHaOeu9All82VJIJcWE3aYxWj2LRV0CfPYx+L0mC0amrdrHrRFJkk61aPkEU5Hx dYq09c96U9CmxRavGpmg+bN8N/SmipXdEePM4gQAjcK9dOY8bK7Wl1bN6rO0lY4lnq5n OrvInkAcdqxaawlzC1XqNv0GcSqKEZBHheXabPShVh5mzUGpVtipwIk++aGm6RWTOJ65 +bC6FWBbt9f3nZaisBu8MYo99pMTovMyMXzL25+DBekQe3gDamFlJiBCXRNaAs/cnmjM yYPEQ5EDfzHkb8BxiojJL9wXVf5iBZIfySZBcJSwQiL4L+JT/pu6N3aXIeyjipM2Tox4 X52w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMft6jPAsQt9bxnBSokhQiRQGq/mGZ0Sdydl4k/emRh/bU04lvAIbtorgULKGj/+2L1q9h
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.175.70 with SMTP id by6mr22506782wjc.3.1397250756914; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.54.162 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [66.84.81.58]
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:12:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iK6zL4fDVzC795Cq8FDxdE3THhLLkDDUPRZEjqcz70mNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cAIvVE4Fg9qAX3pRJJ_ryghKv4c
Subject: [DNSOP] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 21:12:40 -0000

Hi there all,

At the moment this document says that the child SHOULD remove the
CDS/CDNSKEY record once the parent has consumed / acted on it (this
behavior was requested by someone -- unfortunately I cannot remember
whom).

I *think* that I'm hearing that folk would prefer that the child
SHOULD leave it in, or, less strongly MAY remove it.

This (IMO) makes the doc and the child's life simpler, but potentially
makes a bit more work for the parent -- currently most of the
time the parent will see no CDS, and so will go back to sleep. If the
child leaves them around, the parent will need to check them against
what is currently published and take action if they differ.

Can folk please let us know if they would prefer:
A: The child SHOULD remove the CDS/CDNSKEY RR from the zone once the
parent has published it (currently documented behavior) or

B: The child SHOULD NOT remove the CDS/CDNSKEY RR (will require a
small edit to the doc)

My personal preference is for B - it seems more elegant, but (as
always) we'll do whatever the WG wants.

W