IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements

Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz> Thu, 15 December 2022 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
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 654ACC14F730 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:01:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ZDjSIjMfoVI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:01:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2345C1526E9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2a02:768:2d1c:226:f78c:eabe:6da8:9a95] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:768:2d1c:226:f78c:eabe:6da8:9a95]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 340831C06DA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:01:32 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.cz; auth=pass smtp.auth=vladimir.cunat@nic.cz smtp.mailfrom=vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2RrTOMcLNAG0NFtLmfNiXhJ9"
Message-ID: <2c0c7853-7b3c-6a80-3a2a-664c76f91a8e@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:01:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Content-Language: cs, en-US
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+FwRaSdpSWXBDqCG9ZPNPiG4pGUx37PVtExbqVPr5ZfmA@mail.gmail.com> <e8f3d519-9152-4caf-1fe0-d5e509ca4802@desec.io>
From: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <e8f3d519-9152-4caf-1fe0-d5e509ca4802@desec.io>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spamd-Bar: /
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.90 / 20.00]; R_MIXED_CHARSET(1.00)[subject]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:44489, ipnet:2a02:768::/32, country:CZ]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[ietf]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]
X-Rspamd-Action: no action
X-Rspamd-Server: mail
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 340831C06DA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/q9eiL9CWDTYdmmE4x3Tc5lJ7dDw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 15 Dec 2022 14:01:38 -0000

On 15/12/2022 14.45, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> In what sense is this document "informational" when it is called 
> "validator requirements", or, conversely, in what sense does it spell 
> out "requirements" when it is only "informational" and not "standards 
> track"? 

The current *title* says "Recommendations".  I don't think the draft 
name matters much, especially after it becomes an RFC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email