Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Wed, 18 July 2018 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F427130E0A for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KxceI8CwWAsl for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9C1C130DE4 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u7-v6so4734666lji.3 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KqhTAVjsiRxtSIYwNfYRI0F62QcurkoYj1NuteSJQdg=; b=cR9y3FcSnFEYXJ5xsJbcC4rG8rnnXfyFx8RvHBe0OJfHdgsOE+v1qt2etZssWzlXLj BYSIgxgdqnBsACHxKwEE2ymKIIkJHWBjXQvoMNfpk2+ObVrwWRcPzXc0fvATsDVg7puH iC5JTICFqIkGz2rB+w+O4hA543qm0L2B9unJbUI4EjerE7s2NOFH6JewUyDEogAZtPhX dqdIr0pln9N+V5smdEJX+JKUaD9PROTOuPqIDeswjvH/S/I+XcWWNiy48fUxJfxWm/kW uBRf8jwTzr/7Yq7Zx3taaNzXwiKEuR8SO/48EBMfNF7UfAsKFOeFSVkNLde4zmW71WkW rJ1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KqhTAVjsiRxtSIYwNfYRI0F62QcurkoYj1NuteSJQdg=; b=U0bKkPgZeF5N8cVHnrICBOtVUdataryjwAFOvzyRsL+LkRxmANdkidRgwavYBioqdz cEJHaBWvQdnx3/12Ov08XnLj4y287zfuZCH35x42KxPLfggcITvmdvJQDo95iUmcMg4u i3EWn6R4ytf7GbjP7IlF2k3T8F+PGlh8vIN96kZk4H7cZEHA4cXQLbVVDvKwjwNZ/+j7 Yw3iJjB9fxm8JenLXSMd5J2CX8JoLx5xctUS5dFrgojifg3ksTTn/35GUFo80cgkAKop b8yWN1a35pNFxXkUEjkghyST7mofltCZxT0sq8kUibpQIZ7lEUBAUMuMGiRndDV5+oaJ UFmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG3wQ604JhTwCqUzvBppIN8RDKhSmU1t0agYEetDM1+ykqsSa/8 BP/CnPSwJR+UUU9UbKb3K2UdTjiFdH3mbvQva2Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfNaMQdLSgSsE8Txd6hjELxzgIxqat+Oi0m97C6+4D4oxQ6L9Zo20p3Czvm0OgWer5Or3cH5FaVWDue2jGwP6A=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:1dc8:: with SMTP id w69-v6mr5513681lje.110.1531933483172; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a2e:3a13:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:04:42 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Dave Crocker <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001589520571490f30"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:04:48 -0000

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Dave Crocker <> wrote:

>> I imagine myself as a SECDIR reviewer, and believe this would be the
>> first section I would read for any document to which I'm assigned.
>> Discovering there a sentence that basically says "None" would get my back
>> up ("We'll see about that!").
>> More generally, I have had success with my proposed tactic in the past,
>> so I thought I'd suggest it here.
> I've gotten decreasingly tolerant of using gambits in a specification
> document, in order to maneuver through the process. I think the document
> should say what it needs to to do its job and not have material that is
> primarily for appeasement those in charge.  Gambits add cruft, and often
> mislead the reader into thinking there is substance when there isn't.
> (I think I hit my limit when we appeased an AD for KIM and added the
> requirement for the DKIM signature cover the From: field, thereby aiding in
> community misunderstanding of what DKIM does.)
> If the suggested change had any actual substance with respect to security
> issues, that would be quite a different matter.  But it doesn't.
> Obviously if the wg would prefer different language, we'll use it...

It's not a major issue (to me).  Just a suggestion.

> Reading the document, I got the impression that in your research you
>> discovered some underscore names that don't quite follow the proposed
>> placement.  If my inference is wrong, then so is that clause.
> sorry, but apparently something is getting in the way of my understanding
> this issue.  Now I'm confused about the 'placement' reference.

I'm willing to accept that I'm inventing a problem here that doesn't
actually exist, and you're advocating more generally for keeping this
section as terse as possible, so let's skip it.