Re: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> = Sec 2 =
>
> "Technical personnel trained in the operation of DNS servers MUST
>    confirm that a failure is due to misconfiguration"
>
> s/MUST/must/ - seems odd to put a normative requirement on people to do
> something in people land

Fair 'nuff. We had some discussions on this, but there wasn't really
any strong consensus.
I've made the edit and posted in Github -
https://github.com/wkumari/draft-livingood-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors


>
> = Sec 4 =
>
> "The lifetime MUST NOT exceed a week. "
>
> Would be good to provide the motivation for where this number comes from.

This number comes from Evan.... :-)

Less flippantly, it is in this email:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13004.html  I
don't think that we have a really good motivation for a week, other
than that is feels sort of like a good, human scale timeframe to
recheck on things. We really want there to be a limit on the lifetime,
a week felt right... but, I still like "because Evan said so..."

Are you OK with leaving it unmotivated[0], because there isn't really
a good motivation?

W
[0]: :-)






-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf