IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> Thu, 09 July 2015 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 2FD111ACCDA; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 00:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.184
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 piVjwWtcPyq3; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 00:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bela.nlnetlabs.nl (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2613C1ACCD9; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 00:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bela.nlnetlabs.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bela.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t697wcOc019917; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:58:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jaap@NLnetLabs.nl)
Message-Id: <201507090758.t697wcOc019917@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-reply-to: <CAHw9_iJ9LPDhhdDby4QW6K354P7rEuxOjTbAVdSmd2td7AAJnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150708225400.20543.78092.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHw9_iJ9LPDhhdDby4QW6K354P7rEuxOjTbAVdSmd2td7AAJnw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> message dated "Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:50:09 -0400."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <19915.1436428718.1@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:58:38 +0200
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:58:39 +0200 (CEST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/o21WZvarTI2s7-k-OENez9rM-VY>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 07:58:46 -0000

 Warren Kumari writes:
 
 > 
 > 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?
 > 

RFC 1035 considers in Section 7.3 that a week for a TTL is excessive.
So you might use that as a (weak) guideline.

	jaap

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email