IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Another attempt at consensus on the bailiwick discussion

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 16 December 2021 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 D6AE63A012A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:31:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 GCx6f_eLMWHn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::85]) (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 86A623A0125 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JDvj337nXz3s4; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:31:35 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1639618295; bh=s45FoBCWVnWYztyO9dkAbS4VGE7c2dSyIr7L2tGHTNA=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=N2aSKc7AcjDyR0wQCTyHw+wD/B5zpespNfkgn4iJq7qUTVbRtFT4lS/CaY/L7PKvK eZcj1/vShzLuHXHGh42hgJ9qbKwkS/KvtrTBM5h4alriY/reQKMRcx0we+rwtm5Dhy XyzrSf14zs6NRr3nYYf3lJVM6jNwrJNfs3I1GMus=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72PjMhBQo0yz; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:31:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:31:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (23-233-74-210.cpe.pppoe.ca [23.233.74.210]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB5701D4360; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:31:32 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:31:26 -0500
Message-Id: <61D532C7-768E-4B32-9600-9F67202F8F98@nohats.ca>
References: <315888CA-4429-4038-AB6F-0D38B95A2FA2@verisign.com>
Cc: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <315888CA-4429-4038-AB6F-0D38B95A2FA2@verisign.com>
To: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19B74)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fR9CHNh_eszbvQOeFPBbxqz4_3U>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Another attempt at consensus on the bailiwick discussion
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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 Dec 2021 01:31:44 -0000

On Dec 15, 2021, at 18:56, Wessels, Duane <dwessels=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> For me “necessary” is an important distinction and “might be useful” is too broad or ambiguous.  I have a hard time reconciling the idea that glue is not optional with the idea that it might be useful

Necessary for resolving, securely resolving and/or resolving with privacy ?

In other words, would a TLSA or SVCB be “necessary” or not ?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email