Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 06 July 2017 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 E9CA01243FE; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 6mtrzMaUtiXa; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B1EA1200CF; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l21so3735153ywb.1; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 22:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uHVeNbNHoK29aRMz27nqKGVR+c6W6CgvPf6zqu0ydWE=; b=aJczYaxJr41VDyifvM8tZrEBTkbHgZ2+8M08FLTwK/NCQf+vi5X7SwYDJpGfOImZGR r105VsePH0lTcbwnNYkqAEnzrZSaJAbaMHH9TFCmLZVP5rxG9rfetT0Edo32o/1cvxuF 0VFBlP2Kn/uSI9/Dahg2GwiGPp9NGFohCyb386anc7rZJ2GLRxpxJSe7PcBymC/y9uCp MMKlWWstLj0SzjdtVKD2tLc5fPwDBJdZfS2mUaJjQcpqHe2CB+IdmS1HPPK/FYxP7o2a /eI4vP81Bzr9Gu4zNrR2qMVQrfqOoPQUioq1XEj/EjLgBGyZPv68/fdvhDzO3atJQ6es ZaVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uHVeNbNHoK29aRMz27nqKGVR+c6W6CgvPf6zqu0ydWE=; b=uhZ9KO7CCd72YaXkRrOMsLGFCS3MUgZu1Oo6z8De8WxG8vAPC878dUwS3QrGSGPKce SIbJZGaMPcW08uSfH/v9qVd5WtCXW+Yd+TjdOk9OnLmkhfkYlNt53Cy+zWLpsTXRzAJq tB/xuwctiqGgAFZOTuudRyWIFfZkgAPlkGRzvelFXdjm1uTy1g8w9zQa/8F7aYTPzyiJ MHtTZbW8P0BAkculrwq9kYXYZjFMcAacVNEqjPJFPLZzfBlsIBKb4iDCkKhmtpmzLwOj dbqWkSh0H3UQUWR/ORu7jDsvrn0MWcxqnd1J+h8fODAarDOxbbz+21n4jvV8txvQ3PDP 8YRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOy4UA9i2AKTZXi/5WU0BL3wNfONERzYs8vdJGSMBBou1GMxo8Is Jf/gUwGJF7pWkTAAa7rbJrSf41YBBw==
X-Received: by 10.129.78.80 with SMTP id c77mr36594565ywb.289.1499319867376; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 22:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.91.137 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.91.137 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <81b46c8e-8667-de07-e564-153704d4b4b7@cisco.com>
References: <149922136362.3281.8137557234349761847.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D2C1513-BBA1-4551-B91A-4C8F6B63E200@nominum.com> <CAKKJt-c60sY_xkbHTMfZRpYBBpsodnYXdLzqj+oQp_WFYgpUjA@mail.gmail.com> <81b46c8e-8667-de07-e564-153704d4b4b7@cisco.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 00:44:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-e_2RQ86wyfgVBxiUudZ1NtAYwjUvsVuu=nzAgU8LQxdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="001a114dae1a1a602805539f9c1b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wCPOftNfjJbHt7BYiluELi-a728>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 05:44:30 -0000

Hi, Benoit,

On Jul 5, 2017 12:32 PM, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>; wrote:

Hi,

Hi, Ted,

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>; wrote:

> Spencer, not to respond to all your comments right now, but just to point
> this out: the list of problems is not claimed to be correct.   It is
> claimed to be the list of problems that people have asserted exist.   I do
> not agree that all the problems listed are problems, nor I think does
> anyone else.   If that's not clear in the document, that's probably worth
> correcting.
>

I think my comments are more likely to be unclear than the way the document
describes the problem set. What you said, is what I think the document says.

I'm mostly sending comments about specific points that the document makes,
that I think I understand at a surface level, but I don't think I
understand the implications in a few cases, so, that's what I included in
my ballot.

I think the document is clear enough on "claimed to be the list of problems
that people have asserted exist", and even if I didn't think that was a
fine basis for this document, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the
authors change the criteria for what's included.

Part of my AD review, I asked the text to clarified. Hopefully, it's
clarified.
>From the 04 to 05 diff:


That is clear (and clearer than -04).

Spencer



Regards, B.




On Jul 5, 2017 12:32 PM, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>; wrote:

Hi,

Hi, Ted,

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>; wrote:

> Spencer, not to respond to all your comments right now, but just to point
> this out: the list of problems is not claimed to be correct.   It is
> claimed to be the list of problems that people have asserted exist.   I do
> not agree that all the problems listed are problems, nor I think does
> anyone else.   If that's not clear in the document, that's probably worth
> correcting.
>

I think my comments are more likely to be unclear than the way the document
describes the problem set. What you said, is what I think the document says.

I'm mostly sending comments about specific points that the document makes,
that I think I understand at a surface level, but I don't think I
understand the implications in a few cases, so, that's what I included in
my ballot.

I think the document is clear enough on "claimed to be the list of problems
that people have asserted exist", and even if I didn't think that was a
fine basis for this document, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the
authors change the criteria for what's included.

Part of my AD review, I asked the text to clarified. Hopefully, it's
clarified.
>From the 04 to 05 diff:


Regards, B.