Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Thu, 06 July 2017 18:53 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 96FB013190D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 GJHTgiTL5LZz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50CCE13189B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (50-1-20-198.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.20.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7EFE2084A; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <ybl4luqq05v.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <CANeU+ZBzP+0REnZf0=_t60oXD_oA1nbYMRGcoFQ221buJb8YBw@mail.gmail.com> <ybly3s2le1m.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <CANeU+ZD7NF07hZdsQT74bZar41dW6i2k6zaNvVnbRg0WYP4tMQ@mail.gmail.com> <yblmv8il906.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <8c53d2b7-afe7-fe83-27b0-11297d896ad7@nthpermutation.com> <ybl1sptlazr.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <a1af5a54-8d50-698d-71e2-87f6dbeb9ca2@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 11:53:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: <a1af5a54-8d50-698d-71e2-87f6dbeb9ca2@nthpermutation.com> (Michael StJohns's message of "Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:42:57 -0400")
Message-ID: <yblo9sxpfb8.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dr6pvOWMFlQ79f54kcpKWguGjuA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-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, 06 Jul 2017 18:53:50 -0000

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>; writes:

> On 7/6/2017 1:40 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>; writes:
>>
>>> I'm sure you think that... but the small changes you've made to
>>> address some of my comments haven't gone far enough.  There's also a
>>> need for a grammar and syntax pass on the document.
>> Thanks for the review and suggested text (the previous messages you sent
>> didn't provide as many concrete fixes, so we can now incorporate you
>> exact issues now that they're more directed).  We'll try to put together
>> an update to address the issues you've pointed out shortly (which really
>> can't happen till Monday of IETF since we're after cut-off).
>
> I didn't provide concrete fixes because the general model was missing
> the point and the re-write could have been substantial. Now we're
> finally on the same page that this only applies to "exclusively
> signing with the new keys" we can make progress.  It wasn't until this
> last version that you'd adopted those changes.

We disagreed about the proper way to word it.  We always agreed on the
idea.  It's good to clarify it more completely to ensure everyone else
reads that intent though.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI