IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Expiration impending: <draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>

"Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de> Mon, 05 October 2015 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEEA1A1A5F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 jQ5ajEskkzqD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (nyx.guxx.net [85.10.208.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613E41A19E3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id 1089A5F40568; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:23:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [64.89.232.145] (unknown [64.89.232.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 626365F40550; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:23:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:23:00 -0400
Message-ID: <83D350CD-E4BD-4877-8E7C-4DD138FD82E1@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <70FA923D-C067-492E-A1EA-7B88754C2D5B@gmail.com>
References: <20150928114202.823.19868.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0E4AA958-7740-4602-A3CF-D2E481DBC15E@hopcount.ca> <20150928155325.GA63874@gaon.net> <20150929095301.32c3e6a3@casual> <13F1D87F-1C07-40EB-86B0-564C4109C9B0@virtualized.org> <1973252D-924F-4EF1-A38F-5EC01AD331F6@gmail.com> <FDD04DCC-59C5-41F5-8CAF-1EF31CD65A34@virtualized.org> <63E1E01E-C172-4A0F-B434-F796546BB657@gmail.com> <C4FA9FA6-76E3-4FF3-862B-C5C0DF75C761@kirei.se> <D1C15986-603E-4932-B551-0497638D9849@vpnc.org> <02869F43-87A4-4797-8FD3-276C02DF665D@kirei.se> <EEA946B1-8BF3-4AB7-99D2-4C8CDCCF0EC0@vpnc.org> <F412CE02-C0BA-425E-BBF9-3A40B2B5FEA7@vpnc.org> <9F52E6FC-E503-4E3A-9998-363BF514CC1A@hopcount.ca> <D2C7120E-D13A-4372-8A8D-FE16DDDB5AEA@vpnc.org> <6CE2A233-0CD3-4490-BDDE-A0E82B305F05@hopcount.ca> <97AFB21E-9233-4753-8F89-A6AC6C6B079B@vpnc.org> <A1B41B27-AFB0-4B42-9F46-AA1D8D5D00F6@hopcount.ca> <D3A29F92-2A24-4CEC-93CF-164BD2497C1E@vpnc.org> <BFB819A9-9C50-4049-A5F0-5054CD86EC94@hopcount.ca> <70FA923D-C067-492E-A1EA-7B88754C2D5B@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iaCyTUB_pb6gZ3X7IZ5F5gq07ME>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Expiration impending: <draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-11.txt>
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:23:09 -0000

Moin!

On 5 Oct 2015, at 17:42, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

> All,
>
> First, thanks to the engaging on this.
>
> On Oct 5, 2015, at 5:20 PM, "Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it's time to sit back and wait for others here to express an 
>> opinion.
>
> I'd like to hear opinions from others in the WG with an operational 
> interest in the DNSSEC root trust anchor.
>
> Does this document meet a need you have? If so, how well does it meet 
> the need, and what would it take (if anything) for the document to 
> meet that need more effectively?
Having written an implementation of what is in the document and knowing 
at least two much more clueful people who also did that I think this 
document fills a need. Having people distinguish their configuration 
from their code and instead using code to get the initial trust anchor 
with it IMHO certainly serves a purpose.

So yes we should publish this, and as is is fine with me.

So long
-Ralf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email