Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 01 January 2021 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 418153A0A5E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 10:42:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 yT43rRyVmtZh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 10:42:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C8D3A0A4C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 10:42:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF11BE2C; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 18:42:34 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gcb7B3Z2Iwo; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 18:42:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E48C4BE24; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 18:42:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1609526553; bh=XJP8EoDS6ARPmna43zySuQWjfI09Rd+0hCEYkHBtGZg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=sXtCCpjqlNbma26Zwm/rpw+OIPmxe4AR9NvZkhp2rCk9lIAZG4IudRNfU7/M2Tntz DvHumW58V4QD/QMfYzMIkAD+HLAfmxD9hWxwzXfmugYoHNgXMfGALFX+StZXc+0jop i5uY7vsPO5LGEnWrDgfmnWHrEEkc9T+aTQ2DPl7M=
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CADZyTkn1QuvjencR8+wVtQ9bzQHJT9JXXNku1LPr3YRmRt4KQg@mail.gmail.com> <2E8229BE-E764-4C29-A258-8C469717E38A@nohats.ca> <CABcZeBMr5Muijx5V7Se1UcxTB9DbAzF1iXZb7_FzEGfw982x8w@mail.gmail.com> <65e3288d-bdfe-ff10-2fbc-63a5d2dd9508@cs.tcd.ie> <797AAE77-2D50-4189-81D8-44BA495146F5@icann.org> <546e60c6-b109-8552-dfb4-7d3ba2ecbc71@cs.tcd.ie> <E58B4013-9491-43ED-83C9-250FF7647570@icann.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <0746397c-ed85-429c-ff6e-a4a559520e86@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 18:42:31 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E58B4013-9491-43ED-83C9-250FF7647570@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WOV4c8eS4dwKThYwC6xXv43RdJz2l88GL"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/uU8Px7XrdNsR-EmQPtN9aASpYeA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
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: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 18:42:40 -0000

Hiya,

On 01/01/2021 17:58, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> The WG has already adopted the revised GOST document as a WG item;
> what you are proposing (if the current use is negligible) would be in
> the opposite direction.
I wasn't "proposing" that, just posing it as a possible
option that might or might not be sensible to consider
depending on the facts relating to usage if/when we can
get 'em. Absent usage information, I'm not at all sure
whether or not any change from the status quo is warranted.

Cheers,
S.