IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Changes since draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.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 CAC8821F86AA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.262
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.262 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PYkcbQqhftwH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp195.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp195.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB6921F8694 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp59.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A6FA33F0565; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp59.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 7EAEF3F05D8; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5086A308.80202@ogud.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:00:40 -0400
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <507D691F.9000404@nlnetlabs.nl> <50868055.6030809@sidn.nl> <20121023132955.GH21418@miek.nl> <311AADB4-956F-499B-971A-AE0D8BB3921B@ucd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <311AADB4-956F-499B-971A-AE0D8BB3921B@ucd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Changes since draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 23 Oct 2012 14:00:44 -0000

On 23/10/2012 09:46, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> On 23 Oct 2012, at 14:29, Miek Gieben wrote:
>
>> The paragraph is a *suggestion* in a *bcp*.
>
> 	I don't see what point you're trying to make with this remark.
>
> 	Indeed, if the suggestion is not congruent with current practice,
> 	it seems to me that it very much ought not to belong in a so-called
> 	"Best Current Practice".  You seem to be emphasizing Antoin's
> 	position; but then you object to it.
>
> 	ATB
> 	/Niall
>

As I disagree with the general applicability of Antion's proposal and
consider it a paternalistic overreach I think rfc4641bis should go 
forward w/o change.
While I think the idea of passing keys though the registry between 
operator has some merit I do not see it as viable alternative outside 
few cc'tld's thus it it does not deserve to be included in a BCP without 
full debate.

	Olafur

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email