Re: [DNSOP] on staleness of code points and code (mentions MD5 commentary from IETF98)

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 27 March 2017 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.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 606C4129636 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 lvi9KF_f0KMj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09703126DEE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8770.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-8770.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.135.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8739F2421513; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <58D96BC0.9040701@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:10:18 +0100
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <CEA6CE48-E9ED-4618-8A09-0D88AB01500F@rfc1035.com>
References: <58D96BC0.9040701@redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nMJCT0KrCi3sXKJ4a6jE_vgZleY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] on staleness of code points and code (mentions MD5 commentary from IETF98)
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:10:24 -0000

> On 27 Mar 2017, at 20:45, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 
> all code has bugs, eventually. or at least, there is no
> existence proof to the contrary, and also, no reason to suspect
> otherwise. so, code that is not used will not be reviewed or maintained.
> it's a risk, just by existing.

+1. The most reliable and safest code is the code that isn't there.