Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 06 March 2015 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88301ACE17 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:56:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 w8Z5U-WMmfvo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:56:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9FDF1A6F15 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DDE20644; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:55:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nCyCZSSvS4C9; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:55:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-177-26-195.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.177.26.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:55:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id F3970813FF; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:56:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
References: <tsl8ufoh9ko.fsf@mit.edu> <2DF7230C-D1D8-4B21-9003-B336108A38CB@vpnc.org> <20150224172649.GX1260@mournblade.imrryr.org> <tslvbircj0d.fsf@mit.edu> <0325DF3F-17F3-4400-BDEA-EDB5334BF35C@frobbit.se> <20150225180227.GT1260@mournblade.imrryr.org> <7AB921D35A7F9B23A53BD11A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <tslvbip8io6.fsf@mit.edu> <54F09A35.9060506@qti.qualcomm.com> <54F78650.6070503@qti.qualcomm.com> <20150305064513.GH1260@mournblade.imrryr.org> <54F7FE09.3030200@cisco.com> <7111545C27DE9021135BE185@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <tslegp3o0zn.fsf@mit.edu> <6FC72D10-6AF2-4F84-B1AC-27F5B7E632AC@frobbit.se> <707B021F63C5C411E563AE4B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <93DFD15D-4ED3-4FEE-B26B-F6578459137D@frobbit.se> <F03661F9CDFC6686BF2AE425@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:56:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <F03661F9CDFC6686BF2AE425@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> (John C. Klensin's message of "Fri, 06 Mar 2015 02:28:44 -0500")
Message-ID: <tsl7fuumdqi.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z9jF2mEO7iwvrfeiy7Bp_WsxZzk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:06:28 -0800
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, ietf@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:56:16 -0000

I think that the security considerations in -10 are better than what we
seem to be wordsmithing on the list.
My preference is to call -10 good enough in this regard especially given
that it is informational.

I don't support  a desire to reduce the strength of security warnings in
the document, as I think John may be asking for.
However personally I don' have the energy to really engage in much more
of a discussion for this document.

I think AS work is quite important,  and I hope that happens at a time
when I have energy to participate but it's far more important to me that
it happen regardless of my participation.