Re: [dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates

On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote:

> I've been churning through the IESG telechat comments and single discuss on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates.
> 
> I have two questions for the WG, and I want to report on several textual changes that I plan to adopt, inspired by the IESG's comments.
> 
> 
> Q1: (from Stephen Farrell)
> 
>> During the "no answer" mega-discussion on the DANE list, [1] I
>> seem to recall this comment was made more than once: "you're
>> seeing all this because you're maybe the first new
>> application that really needs DNSSEC," or words to that
>> effect. Should any of that discussion be reflected in this
>> document? (I assume its not already there for timing reasons
>> if nothing else.)
>> 
>>  [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg04845.html

It would be helpful to DANE and future protocols if "no answer" was discussed more fully. The amount of differing opinions about the four states *even among DNSSEC-knowledgeable people* in that thread and others was significant. The fact that "bogus" is defined differently in different DNSSEC documents didn't help us come to conclusion, either.

> Q2: There's been another call to explain why section 3.1 says a validator MUST implement a BAD cache.  If nothing better comes up, I plan to just cite http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-02/rollover.html Is there anything better?  Or is there a short summary we can just copy into this doc?

Citing that article works, but a short summary would be better.

--Paul Hoffman

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext