IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Nothing more useful to say About key tags

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 04 March 2024 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 BEAFCC151088 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 pcR9qSYJi9Ew for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B043AC14F749 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1rhDok-0000LSC; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 20:17:42 +0100
Message-Id: <m1rhDok-0000LSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "4 Mar 2024 14:48:41 -0400 ." <20240304184841.70541845FC12@ary.local>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 20:17:41 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vIdkVZMzbE5qdcBRBZkZFPYoy3E>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Nothing more useful to say About key tags
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 19:17:49 -0000

>Not at all. This would be an incompatible change that breaks existing
>working DNS configurations, for at most a trivial simplification in
>load limiting code many years from now, even assuming people were to
>implement it.

Opinions difference how much this change will help.

The point I wanted to make is that this change does not lead to issues at
level of DNSSEC standard protocols.

Yes, there might be some implementations that need to adjust. That's often
the case with protocol changes. If we cannot make protocol changes any more
out of fear that implementations may need to change then we have
reached the top of ossification.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email