Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call [draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]

Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> Wed, 05 October 2016 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rharolde@umich.edu>
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 744031297B6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 5Q5WqBwLNvxy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 68FA3129820 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id i129so169721188ywb.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pKFkKzaql/rAJ4mGTzDzXYCr67E8YLIb1yr8Xf282/g=; b=mKjY6D1rnNh3j41fIK1GGd/lNycW+pATEI5hcNwarHinGk2XICPxDi8K9oHIwRKlKm N12YkEYXL1pVOIcOl0k/ZqL7p60VQmVn428hx3wngDS0s2+SkcvxD41aeaNhxp9lZY2z 2B51Sf+zYkJt/4P653q20PYn5Nd6fYGA5pqV4zTX4CkkRrDD2S9rn9kptq9qKeMBs7Iv Lryt4VOxIIx1/Fap+i+DdfxmuoVo5NHzF4+gCoJ1Wou64d1GLEq4SaqIf7L79ZGqi2rI aZqTRwUOxLGy+YhHtDfPT0UfyusoUfdsxGypDGNTXAF/mXYoMoa4pZBLsTpKx+3IXgKD XIbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pKFkKzaql/rAJ4mGTzDzXYCr67E8YLIb1yr8Xf282/g=; b=cokb7TawKgaA4vsZ7uEWl1J71bU8z/pdTuI0WLt2KrreDFuaJv49c1fPSE63RAbVSw DX/EWz+m6aS6xr49zs1HoKzkP8ZmV0zNpy2ZRVi8tJg3reWxgQvAk4KhmlT0axYMy+Mh f0VvucaPkmbQxrMHV6VZHH1MTDENpqWJ3nhMizR8q/l91QzTfmDOhorLFBUBxBM0orY/ eQYxp4oBd2YKVcjv071jLFQ+2rY03d2YaiZ9v3gBDicfurqw5enqaxs4Dg3vPD6XOOzV ejzAnc9GAuSN03fx+JsqeDZjtojfhGOXj8Utoh+e+FkzUxDiaUSUO+fHoIZvp9kF3dpF GAeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmLBj2sJwzKRYZMLCOMM904VmLDyts5Ffuo3q26JZPSjdbqWi6fAGxVHQ5wYwAytGWN79Kirz+g418o7Zyj
X-Received: by 10.37.173.146 with SMTP id z18mr102241ybi.194.1475694266428; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.255.131 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20161004192237.15135.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <CAHw9_iJrgF3w-=0e8XbBLbDNPN9Nyuw15WS7AcZO5LbzBLKR8A@mail.gmail.com> <20161004192237.15135.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:04:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+nkc8CNx9-ROWkV8gs5N5+Pjw1NJb8qQ3DPXAxDUC5+mJv-=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045db1148c3da2053e22d816
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hPHe1Ozm-Fu58Dzs73GygtMbv-A>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call [draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 19:04:31 -0000

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> >Yup, my view (as can probably be guessed!) is that doing this for
> >negative answers is the important bit, and that wildcard synthesis was
> >easy to add while we had the hood open (see "shipwright's disease",
> >which I suffer from greatly[0]). Seeing as the large majority of the
> >discussion has been about the negative answers, I'm going to remove
> >the wildcard text.
> >
> >*Please* WG, let me know if you'd rather that we keep it...
>
> I'd rather you keep it.
>
> +1
Keep the positive, rather than writing a separate RFC for that later.

-- 
Bob Harold