IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with COMMENT)

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 October 2021 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 8CBDD3A0E88; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 xHcLLbBZGA4F; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (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 36DF33A0E5F; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id x27so79309719lfa.9; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 19:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MnfLMxvGMWF9MXoDlf63Tjks+RCOH/PYoytJG3IZa6s=; b=ZfoAvSw7kSVbvu4w2YV758RhfuKIBrYyhNAp2WECBmLTCrDydIP3494QWCDzKHZ7T1 LO9XYFqwd7DMIjQamIO+v/CVojrqzIct6mCCNBQdTZbi+65mBRPH/r0Xi3HYz6HExRbq 8SOXyliu5djvfxF7PbvudXoj7gGBTlahFwlHkssakwrgodhkLj42jy9qizWIN7qXPbCd aZv1ZvYJcTVV38+qN37A2y1OVihG9EBiLBFLy+zCkaECxPQac2zE9ZyidwFB87jif7Zp vRKgvT1UviO5LPqw7HMV+EnyDtFv0EGYZ9mJE+JFIhuj2X/nAEsCQkZnb7WlVT9hg2Wc yCDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MnfLMxvGMWF9MXoDlf63Tjks+RCOH/PYoytJG3IZa6s=; b=xcg5vO/sTSbkS6R7TMkH3ULEi4yAY4me0TDHc7NcK3GfX3KWq7YGcNdzxVd7bUntLc 7CmYeC3vJSVvJWi3cQiWLapYgxyxYOx/QCC3P0vpCdBk659vGqaNTsibTXIGx3FYGHyl mO89nTWgx8fETJ8/+At7lZVrQIWGIf4ixC+5w5SoY4jfu4L4Of5HdIOzcAVvRlLvOoRu 3DrdWzZLqc0D8qS+9KEa6bLA3Ez9HKxRKVeaYsMO04ken9naeqTRZzFeziiH1Dm8xjs4 qrcDl5DP9K+8B6U0pXRiTUePhi/C0ppxx9pMielk27bwT/NNAFPBdAJZQkpSq5ys+qF2 FGjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307fBqKGs3AA7NJPcEIsW3sikppyrzySVoU+0jp8VSzrhj9EY37 I5zMeB9CtVZwx7djs6L10+4rws9nsvytFbXlHBUOyHXSh1A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFB35+cElrbHzroCDCtxxjbrlfUGlgs3ZfXWgB7T3Rl6Hiq7dUeaYmv1el0k8YytDxWOm4vL54+UvHC41Jbv4=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5e8e:: with SMTP id b14mr766138lfq.654.1633402364131; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 19:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163323498843.11274.9452563933880073914@ietfa.amsl.com> <52AEFA9E-5F08-45BF-8825-F50F43C86AF5@icann.org> <CAL0qLwbmai=FgVxbuQc1mkNGTHeqMMwOZArT6S8m098neZA1tQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbmai=FgVxbuQc1mkNGTHeqMMwOZArT6S8m098neZA1tQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 22:52:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G1Mw4ZdufXgOBuCA1XS=0TA1JCtK_mW=fRAEU76Woucw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b07d8105cd921fa1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gaII0hE0ZEdnYabmGC0YuOKcW4g>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 02:52:52 -0000

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:30 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 9:39 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> > In Security Considerations, it says:
>> >
>> >   Security decisions about
>> >   which algorithms are safe and not safe should be made by reading the
>> >   security literature, not by looking in IANA registries.
>> >
>> > Should this document request addition of a note to this effect on the
>> registry page itself?
>>
>> I don't think so, because it is true of every IANA registry page that
>> lists crypto algorithms. Or, if you feel such a notice should be this
>> registry, it should probably be in every similar registry, and that could
>> be enacted by a separate Internet Draft that lists the myriad crypto
>> algorthms.
>>
>
> I'm just trying to suggest a way to put this advice where it will be
> seen.  That is, it seems to me the people you're seeking to address --
> those that rely on IANA registries for implementation guidance, rather than
> documents -- aren't going to read this document either, and will continue
> finding that advice in registries and elsewhere.  Seems to me the way to
> reach them is via a note in the registry.
>
> Your call though.  If indeed this admonition would need to appear in many
> places to be useful, I wouldn't expect this document to take care of all of
> that.
>
> -MSK
>
>
Wouldn't a mention of RFC8624 be relevant in this case?
(I'm thinking https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8624.html#page-5)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email