IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-15.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 14 May 2021 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAD63A0B5F for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 May 2021 08:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ICiWmv4QWxNp for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 May 2021 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CFC03A362B for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 May 2021 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F1E38E74; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id sHBwtKDsVmGN; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0520938E72; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1C24B6; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>, homenet <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTkmfJQYya2yqcJb_OG-p-ZFUu+4Q43QS+DEcGFXMwEDhvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <162092926151.12926.11178130729299739728@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADZyTkmfJQYya2yqcJb_OG-p-ZFUu+4Q43QS+DEcGFXMwEDhvw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 11:17:17 -0400
Message-ID: <16432.1621005437@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/SoEduqVXuKyhoBX7FAWUezCKl40>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-15.txt
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 15:17:24 -0000

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Please find the new version that is considering the discussions of the
    > mailing list as well as comments received from Med.

Daniel, I was just proofreading, and you'll see a pull request "typos"

1. reading at the beginning, I didn't recall if we had concluded that we were
   going to mandate the AXFR to be XoT (AXFR over TLS) or not.
   We later reference [I-D.ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls], but not section 4.5.1.
   Is it enough to say it in section 5.1?

2. What if the zone template provided by the DM has to change.
   (Because, for instance, the distribution server NS records change).
   Is the template retrieve each time the zone is signed?
   Once? (And never again?...)
   Based upon some TTL?

3. Section 4.6, we say "SHOULD" on TLS, but in which case, what exception are we
   thinking?  I guess we three will have to do another SHOULD/MUST audit.
   Noting that RECOMMENDED ==> SHOULD.


Section 5 has "YYYY" and "XX"... which feels like maybe we forgot to do some
IANA thing.  Maybe we should omit the placeholders?  What does the WG think?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email