Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 C72551320CF
 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zM8cV63Dfz-c for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2AA71200C5
 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.165.72.145] (unknown [192.165.72.145])
 by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B589204BC;
 Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:21:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <paf@frobbit.se>
To: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:21:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8C160AEC-989A-4D29-A988-FC773440E4BB@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1708172230120.64415@ary.local>
References: <20170816230917.4475.qmail@ary.lan>
 <20170817034747.0F82D8298B68@rock.dv.isc.org>
 <alpine.OSX.2.21.1708171013140.63290@ary.local>
 <20170818001153.37E9082B0500@rock.dv.isc.org>
 <alpine.OSX.2.21.1708172112530.64140@ary.local>
 <20170818013601.473E582B17D6@rock.dv.isc.org>
 <alpine.OSX.2.21.1708172230120.64415@ary.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="=_MailMate_98F1D587-DF64-4E0A-B510-846CBE91EF7D_=";
 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6090)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/i4s-JFvCHpCfwbsq0Rwj8MmVB8k>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] updating fragile dnssec, was Fwd: New Version
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, 18 Aug 2017 05:21:16 -0000

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 3156 and 4880).

--=_MailMate_98F1D587-DF64-4E0A-B510-846CBE91EF7D_=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 18 Aug 2017, at 4:39, John R Levine wrote:

> Some do it one way, some do it the other, and the registars and registr=
ies I've talked to feel very strongly about whichever way they do it.

Correct, and that is why my only strong view is that both mechanisms can =
be implemented by the solution IETF develops (including ability to say "N=
O" to the not chosen option).

   Patrik

--=_MailMate_98F1D587-DF64-4E0A-B510-846CBE91EF7D_=
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlmWeUYACgkQrMabGguI1824fwCfWHml1zDhshrRfwlXIQQFBNA8
9tcAn2prIDnDY5DQAW32Dq+3+pHje6fy
=1tpK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_MailMate_98F1D587-DF64-4E0A-B510-846CBE91EF7D_=--