Re: [DNSOP] [IANA #1362913] expert review for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping (dns-parameters)

[Daniel Salzman <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

We (Knot DNS) don't see any issue with updating our implementation if necessary.
Personally I'm fine with the current format.

Daniel

On 4/21/24 01:38, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> 
>> The authors certainly don't insist, but we'd need to pick a suitable replacement for the "_signal" label.
>>
>> John proposed "_dnssec-signal" elsewhere in this thread.
>>
>> The authors would like to note that adding "_dnssec-" eats up 8 more bytes, increasing chances that bootstrapping will fail due to the _dsboot.<domain-name>._dnssec-signal.<nsname> length 
>> limitation. Other than this (unnecessary?) use case narrowing, this choice seems fine.
>>
>> That said, does this choice address your concerns?
> 
> It would, but I would also be okay if it is just _dnssec.
> 
>> The main question then is to get implementations updated. I'm thus copying a few implementers so they can comment w.r.t. making this change in their implementation. I suppose that barring their 
>> objections, it's fine to go ahead?
> 
> I feel less sympathy there because I brought this up a long time ago :)
> But also, implementations are all young and new and I think it is still
> pretty easy to change.
> 
> Paul