Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: KSK-Sentinal: Once more down the naming rathole.

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Thu, 22 February 2018 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 B29A0124319 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 Z_MHalKh6T7R for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 CBFB712704A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:308f:eaff:fe76:4b70] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:308f:eaff:fe76:4b70]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17EAA62288 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:03:09 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1519290189; bh=z9SuAAbAGXELS87zyltRpqoGzTxBYrNgRDvBz9Bu1T0=; h=To:From:Date; b=jazzoodLj3ML3zA5uDKQazG3LviTEdXNx9v3M/UFEkfOjP37tS4bjN85X0CCn0nCC Frvcfi7hSVejiXIjPfUNA9C2+E5KZP0OJwYiCWWXy7mXoD3Z+tlNttqGAJRfvm/ZjK euJOQe5z9FNM6ORrSqkuN596gT6pDsuEGnh0qU1Y=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAHw9_iLqEerV-So7704qu7A2mbD6YQbzdF8A3FEGtUPOE+6NWw@mail.gmail.com> <DC8845C9-6329-4A02-97F9-45C991726F71@vpnc.org> <CA+nkc8D6zbVMJmntTtEub0iLSB=3Qf8khMu6VibOGrDM55oXpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhMdTPLdVVFCdRTzr9B3sZKGcf0D2pw6C80+V18GqX_=K-2ag@mail.gmail.com> <41098C27-BA7F-4B47-9C97-6536CD353665@verisign.com> <8632B472-F466-4E1F-827D-549167B51DA1@icann.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <3478d544-ebef-3af3-7e8d-19804199fc0c@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:03:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8632B472-F466-4E1F-827D-549167B51DA1@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dV-3VpYqE8SRTgi_hu8bPWdva8s>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: KSK-Sentinal: Once more down the naming rathole.
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, 22 Feb 2018 09:03:13 -0000

On 21.2.2018 21:42, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 2/21/18, 14:59, "DNSOP on behalf of Wessels, Duane" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of dwessels@verisign.com> wrote:
> 
>     
>>    > On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>>    > 
>>    > Why did 8145 specify hex? I don't remember the discussion.
>     
>>    I argued for hex and leading zeroes because I thought it might be beneficial to have some structure in the query name, in case there were false signals from name collisions, etc.  ie, _ta-0001 vs _ta-1.
> 
> I was (back then) for hex because it was fixed width.
> 
> Now I think sticking with the common/legacy/established way (base10) would be better.  I could live with leading 0's, but that's messy when someone it "talking the problem over" with another.

I would prefer decimal for user-friendliness, and zero padding to make
implementation easier and faster.

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC