Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Fri, 06 April 2018 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.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 7524C12702E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 05:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 KOceqb0Hkk26 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 05:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x235.google.com (mail-ot0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFBCF126DED for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 05:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x235.google.com with SMTP id h26-v6so956577otj.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 05:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=B79bV4a/foWKiMh7avDkt851Tky+v96ys0QpcmlobY8=; b=uo6DhGAQ3H1qK3DnipOvL+zFAPdBTISXkbDyi5zrMrNZ1KDYzDrITaL5dIh21b+Boy 34VKzoKH2Wewirn8+yjSAvytsXwrwJTKydDBAFUynBB4WoAlY9MrsDDLCzdcVW3/hO6a yZM+khZk8TBjwwXmscsWIir3LUkzBw5nRjc2h+XMVtxZHG1adnknmmMqhpTQs3v536fD O+Z38gKm2WrZdvbx2JwTlt6f4Xw0B5z0gIwM3mxAYHiZfrqBcLGsEF7RzdCKTK7l1s7e 8m4natr42ipoaHrEzRKrG2b7mKb4T7MKpagwe5In1Y7FUed5hIyYbYQb4m1CQkH76Fuo ybRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B79bV4a/foWKiMh7avDkt851Tky+v96ys0QpcmlobY8=; b=XyIgHmVrVT/hiDxBqFyrLalMOBgPXukZKmxjR8RI5Ve9eFIlT7UoI4ru9i5rbU8NFR WELhFwF6bF1p0QrvMCabSmDD4J/vhuwKW50s5SkOp6CPcjYR0HaoHTNFqMSOhLHjKDiP y5HUtrCYdUYKMS0XW8LKtAoW2gaD0gTPJjsgTlhB185+Pb4nKuGDJiI0F4LxeRV1ioIW J+q1rg7BBgfys1uAOs9iXhR5faIDmL1aN5Afnb4dE4aunuXDXwEZRvlHIYv5CXyFbA9B Abfpca8xSgQA3lPuyCjcsAggPYH8lj5ppWElNineiax3eBULHYZiz3SzuechLCwBVyiu unoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDTuSw8KQsB/a+FW8TYELsIuFXLh5BPdbmuNmRyvnjxD+D2gpvK lIj18FS66qkpY/En19VB00WUFcqSNxV24yoY2HQvKnFF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48lbE2WWPfA9txsBVgEspDCLhxFdsG6gPj4XPgk3gzBXnE/IplSYgfYwkwrhsSp0PIIvanpoglpszNG97t/OVw=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:cd8:: with SMTP id o24-v6mr15037884otd.129.1523017783989; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 05:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+EE9YCCM03wKvd-HefpoQVqhOfeeLKLV8L2LJj+tqmEzA@mail.gmail.com> <EDCD23B6-C97A-4701-9AEE-2F2CF1B4E403@powerdns.com> <9a7adfb2-611e-280e-b7f5-89df2e49ba7a@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <9a7adfb2-611e-280e-b7f5-89df2e49ba7a@nic.cz>
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 12:29:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CACWOCC_cpSpGb1jHPKGyfNf1Mrz-9HzSPF0XGssVjr+d5DuY6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000766c05692d3662"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fo1Fszroy-MOedQRElewa0fH-QM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 12:29:47 -0000

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 14:01, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:

> On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote:
> >
> >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel
> >> we're ready to take this to WGLC.
> >>
> >> (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul)
> >
> > Especially given that an implementation is in fact available (in Knot),
> > why not take this opportunity to start demanding Implementation Status
> > sections for those drafts where that requirement makes sense? Because it
> > certainly makes sense here!
>
> Please note that we did not update Knot Resolver to comply with latest
> version of the draft *yet*. This is likely to happen over next couple
> weeks, not sooner. We have hands full with other tasks at the moment.
>
> Of course patches to
>
> https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/blob/master/modules/ta_sentinel/ta_sentinel.lua
> are more than welcome!
>
>
> Speaking of Joes comment, it makes sense to me. AFAIK other resolvers
> are going to implement this anyway so there is no point in rushing the
> RFC out and setting it in stone before it gets implemented at least twice.



My grandmother used to tell me you can’t build a stable chair with just two
legs. Three is the minimum. Or perhaps four:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BrokenChair.jpg

Kind regards,

Job

>