IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Thu, 08 July 2021 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 849773A2646 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 sD8jwqoTa03I for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (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 4BC7C3A2635 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [192.168.1.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28111D6209 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <0ed6efa6-c981-fa64-472c-eef0c5453f4a@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 12:00:07 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-Id: <4559CEDB-93D4-4BB6-8E39-AA0A0493D40C@dukhovni.org>
References: <CAHw9_iKhvHwUfJMOp-YhJkimmnN0f3DLbh+JWYxhCiZ9CjEEQQ@mail.gmail.com> <0ed6efa6-c981-fa64-472c-eef0c5453f4a@isc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pY3UB4T8hCHtFZpyjbno24A9dZ0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Jul 2021 16:00:15 -0000

> On 8 Jul 2021, at 10:28 am, Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> With my implementer hat on, I say "no", I don't see a compelling reason to "mandate" it. Keep it at MAY/optional level and leave it to implementers to decide what's best for their implementation and use-cases.

Just wanted to check what you mean by *mandate*, I don't quite see
RECOMMENDED as a mandate, my understanding is that SHOULD/RECOMMENDED
means "do this unless you have good reason to do otherwise".  So there
is certainly enough rope to ignore the advice.

How would you strongly suggest that stopping qname minimisation at the
first special-use label is probably a good idea, more strongly than just
mentioning as a possible optional optimisation?

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status