IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] IETF meeting prep and what

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 18 June 2021 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 7EAE63A1E2E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nohats.ca
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 uCrLZfJHf12h for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98ADB3A1E29 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4G67C73cKnzCw6; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:45:07 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1624041907; bh=2MxYfqQH+dE9Zp7XIak0lvR6wS18e2pcmyER0KfS8eI=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=OkLIfy3EE2pZL5aRCtM2m4D8yk4emHx3G80HPpXFV2ggBvkWM8Komoy8peTf8AB/I MugZsBToc3zm6amMFq6vEaEvq9fqiqdK746jLglsYgffwm9Ix23wWCEUc00Fc/XXQB qMGglR+lr5zxd1+0ExwjbzdC3pgMz8dfAzoQq4Tc=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wqjz4FNm4giG; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:45:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:45:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [193.110.157.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED975858EE; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:45:02 -0400
Message-Id: <A7A0319B-2DB5-49F7-9E8C-A0065157D14A@nohats.ca>
References: <5a9b35c5806e36b0802be493d87beb8ef2fef18d.camel@powerdns.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5a9b35c5806e36b0802be493d87beb8ef2fef18d.camel@powerdns.com>
To: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18F72)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xPC28hJ-jMLRZQ0ATn_XaEPw6Jg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IETF meeting prep and what
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, 18 Jun 2021 18:45:17 -0000

On Jun 18, 2021, at 13:41, Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> wrote:
> 
> I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations with a short document deprecating 5011 in its entirety.

Eh? 5011 is baked into various software. Why would replace 5011 ?

Did I miss something?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email