IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Fri, 19 June 2020 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.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 66B2E3A0EA4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Zuv6AAUSdPdG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp125.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (smtp125.ord1d.emailsrvr.com [184.106.54.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D9153A0E95 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Auth-ID: ogud@ogud.com
Received: by smtp8.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 461E5C01AA; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: ogud@ogud.com
Received: from [192.168.6.34] ([UNAVAILABLE]. [96.231.186.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:40:10 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <7269525A-5376-48AA-B9DC-84BE9D84BA36@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:40:09 -0400
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3ACE7F4C-1E7C-4C79-A3AF-9141B181098E@ogud.com>
References: <CADyWQ+H4713BnZDntTuVW0FrO59zZ9NFJ=J=n9JFFq2zmfy2pQ@mail.gmail.com> <A930F8C6-9C33-4933-AC37-579ACEF5B325@ogud.com> <7FF83D52-F20B-4FF2-82AA-416835FCA5F4@isc.org> <CADqLbzJsJ6etv-eZuabLsMO4g+XYgktgpuP-fTNSi1cFTwdOGg@mail.gmail.com> <68eb8413-8704-40a3-9765-7eb19ebd0e78@www.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBORz-ustvXvrYaMm15rAHUfA3zR8Sr3ZscLWB6YJ6-s8w@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+EOcTWX6PrbQUmqM6=Z442bE7itFAG6No0b9MZdcARbOg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOwxO6=Qpoyk=_cDsP5G__3CfjKV8p+boGY4-9OX=Gh8w@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Ge7AmGKT3PZ9SQDkHWi9315T=xbLcx4vQ23e=4T=zmNg@mail.gmail.com> <C2C9BDB4-AA7B-47B8-8735-2A529B37B4BA@icann.org> <CADqLbzLdu-ceWDKk5aUYTe3WzAntJKh5QTncHyy137W=nyDSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <7269525A-5376-48AA-B9DC-84BE9D84BA36@icann.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-Classification-ID: 03cf156b-05bb-4be3-89bb-c505572d43ea-1-1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vunJMOFnqBUfCAIG5pxCt4uAjAk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis
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, 19 Jun 2020 21:40:13 -0000


> On Jun 18, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 18, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The 2nd registry
>> Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms
>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1 <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1>)
>> has the "Standards Action" update policy
> 
> I had forgotten that the DS registry is "standards action". This document shows why that was a bad idea.

Why ? 

> 
> It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", like the other DNSSEC-related registries.
You are proposing a bureaucratic solution without thinking about the operational implications of it. 
The hardest part to update in DNS tree right now is uploading DS records to the parents, keeping the list of algorithms down helps avoid operational problems 

Olafur

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email