[DNSOP] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-09: (with COMMENT)
Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 21 May 2025 15:47 UTC
Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0013A2B4982F; Wed, 21 May 2025 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hardakers.net
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DWyUe-s6VxVQ; Wed, 21 May 2025 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [107.220.113.177]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A01C72B49824; Wed, 21 May 2025 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.9]) (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 mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2090206CA; Wed, 21 May 2025 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.hardakers.net F2090206CA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hardakers.net; s=default; t=1747842429; bh=1dsVE+QBeU9eFhOriyBXEp/X32hZagjUmOb8Zu7urxA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=qzCuUNc8iyhNS8TwZ9/YzwRp4x/tupGqJKp+Cqgxw9pFfsaRIqhFFQpfWGGwFNdjK ZCgEdvLVrqZTSjO3WJRTy2AzsajvJAjA8YtGw1y4gndszMR/xqsreIDkdL8rN2Htn/ Hci8ZHMitNbJRz4POOpZRbIIGwdLcKvE6U1ZuKLk=
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH6gdPwL2f8Q_UpCY_fjSpNTA9QTL3ZcHSRyPg=3ha2=oGCMSA@mail.gmail.com> (Ketan Talaulikar's message of "Wed, 21 May 2025 16:43:36 +0530")
References: <174740246732.302.1496629496693602972@dt-datatracker-59b84fc74f-84jsl> <ybly0urf1rk.fsf@wd.hardakers.net> <CAH6gdPwL2f8Q_UpCY_fjSpNTA9QTL3ZcHSRyPg=3ha2=oGCMSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 08:47:08 -0700
Message-ID: <yblplg23r0j.fsf@wd.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: A2IYFTDXCF34OGZFZXK6XVSMRYBWYUS5
X-Message-ID-Hash: A2IYFTDXCF34OGZFZXK6XVSMRYBWYUS5
X-MailFrom: wjhns1@hardakers.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-09: (with COMMENT)
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qw_vrYEP6brhsS71pEK31pZkpJY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>
Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> writes: > How much of RFC9157 is left over from whatever is being > updated/obsoleted by this document? Would it not be nicer to simplify > things and reduce the pointers back/forth between all these RFCs > since 9157 is in turn updating 3 RFCs and one of them is RFC8624? IMHO, no... It may be wise to update 9157 though so it thus only talks about NSEC3 in the future and removes the discussion about algorithms from 8624. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
- [DNSOP] Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-… Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker
- [DNSOP] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on dr… Wes Hardaker
- [DNSOP] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on dr… Ketan Talaulikar
- [DNSOP] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on dr… Wes Hardaker