Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel-04.txt

Robert Story <> Sun, 28 January 2018 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577B112EBCB for <>; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:01:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.579
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQWnzOHvdNF6 for <>; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0429D12EBD5 for <>; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:01:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t134so2416433qke.5 for <>; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:01:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:organization :mime-version; bh=63vrGx/W8XvAlCaI7lxjl7BvCeK3ksaYxwMDQiRhylA=; b=ptsL4aK5CvIuPfQqzjHG/odKwqa047NPMYdMxkp+anBmQkX4DmTqzCY26c26IY8qu/ zYYfLX8aIhtmelowdOzW5jJ7k1XDUaqAIou5MrXx74V6zxxgwTXQ8l6z+o7qIHNRXwYB GTAB1TZ45CKI+wvchWedT2UGN3mcs3VFfiEupit3QK/U8t6sk1URs9gz98JWu9y4xwhC h6BDQ7xRasFiJKLyLPtEn3DdKt8HSjkKsIGetUg5QyV5irMyhyghKFYFNwEBq7lEQUuA NIDx827YXUbjc5LYePlffZ9Q9Andt505atzhOScYmuCoJAkGld2fxz+EH79Ot8vxSGr9 JW2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version; bh=63vrGx/W8XvAlCaI7lxjl7BvCeK3ksaYxwMDQiRhylA=; b=ForEfdjxK/5ET1uLvmrEDBGMWEV9QkU9apHfvZJINcGmZc3BuPW1B3HGKnTBO9g2/Z 3q7Nz/Quj64A3Pb00EOCELIVXCEDrwamJgS8Bvsa2Sbedu0MumFA1XoFL5Yv3VD5l8OX yWpxP2LXNL4OPeFIqstbuMAcoLUJ7uKBDcNY8gunL60WRQ7yuYrdgAv8vu+euNYC4sy3 JEhl6GijGQKSWzZojyDqbYKh5m/7Fkm+kubhZwlZj9y2y2kjJkmJ4du7wlhYCRo/lKC5 oUQ41DwYlh8xnZTDSIpWkay6G6Tc7l6g3zf8um498tHnkJFCn5ND+GoxAtS1BQJ4Sg3K 4o4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcVF2IiCROEt27hBqMsdS+yb5gKNHQgVTPLPhXcaEfxqSAhh9Cg NFUVMhnWyi2bry8pViEdthis76+t
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225nNQv02Lefn0ZFYAKR64OM+2ZTwrrKx0HYsrehNmEjrVNOYN9U1RmVQCCOzKhJ3iSanLxJkA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l64mr28917095qkh.150.1517144508802; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:01:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 16sm6025229qkd.97.2018. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 08:01:34 -0500
From: Robert Story <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; boundary="Sig_/U/8C4/Vq5Rel8qO4_cRy8ky"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:01:53 -0000

On Mon 2017-11-13 18:26:02-0800 wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
> Operations WG of the IETF.

I was re-reading the draft today and noticed that Vold and Vnew are
inconsistent with Vold and Vnew with respect to non-SERVFAIL responses:

>  o  Vleg: A DNSSEC-Validating resolver that does not implement this
>     mechanism will respond with an A or AAAA RRSET response for "_is-
>     ta", an A record response for "_not-ta" and SERVFAIL for the
>     invalid name.

Shouldn't it be "an A or AAAA RRSET" for "_not-ta"?

>  o  nonV: A non-DNSSEC-Validating resolver will respond with an A
>     record response for "_is-ta", an A record response for "_not-ta"
>     and an A record response for the invalid name.

Similarly, shouldn't all three of these be "an A or AAAA record"?

The table following this text also only specifies "A" for responses.

Robert Story <>
USC Information Sciences Institute <>