Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-04.txt
Scott Rose <scottr.nist@gmail.com> Mon, 12 March 2012 14:22 UTC
Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB62821F87F2; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1331562146; bh=pVzWX8fbFZTz/7RNC8+POcdR06y6oycl5Lm5N2Nfk9Y=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=QI8XaXSwn+eMi19EOtOU+yahg0iwa8k2pbgPyGQO8sAyq+dzEhQOwVhSs3wCFkpx0 lZRn0arAfi/rBAULsrgUWBuH2ubM6BHemsnrCbAm4nIyAO3xcHVKJ6k4rBcCSOi4Bd xSEeT043FRToFI7Qxo8ekPG83ieyHI+UPsExunR8=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCE321F87F4 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id natWre20d6S2 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.nist.gov (rimp2.nist.gov [129.6.16.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BF221F87F2 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-140.antd.nist.gov (107-140.antd.nist.gov [129.6.140.107]) by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q2CEM85e024902; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:22:09 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Scott Rose <scottr.nist@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120311100232.GB23576@miek.nl>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:22:07 -0400
Message-Id: <4E328F58-C269-4EE3-8651-8ED97DFAE393@gmail.com>
References: <20120306162935.4172.91398.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120311100232.GB23576@miek.nl>
To: Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NIST-MailScanner-From: scottr.nist@gmail.com
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
On Mar 11, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Miek Gieben wrote: > [ Quoting <internet-drafts@ietf.org> at 08:29 on Mar 6 in "[dnsext] I-D Action:..." ] >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-04.txt > > I've read the draft and I support it. Below are a few things I found. > (And I still have this question: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12286.html) > > | These signaling options can be > | used by zone administrators as a gauge to measure the successful > | deployment of code that implements a newly deployed digital signature > | and hash algorithm, DS hash and NSEC3 hash algorithm used with > | DNSSEC. > > This sentence has some funny wording. > > | A validating stub resolver already (usually) sets the DO bit > > already (usually), either already of usually? > Yes, both are poorly written. I'll re-write in next version. The second should be: "A validating stub resolver already sets the DO bit..." > | 5. Server Considerations > > What if the server can not comply to the clients wishes? Does > it need to send back an empty DUA edns0? > > | The goal of this option is these options are to signal new algorithm > | uptake in client code to allow zone administrators to know when it is > | possible to complete an algorithm rollover in a DNSSEC signed zone. > > It this the goal? Because with this option we can also facilitate > hash rollovers in nsec3. > Correct - that was left out and should be re-added. Thanks, Scott > Regards, > > -- > Miek Gieben > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
- [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg… internet-drafts
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Marc Lampo
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Miek Gieben
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Miek Gieben
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Warren Kumari
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Scott Rose
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Scott Rose
- [dnsext] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Marc Lampo
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Miek Gieben
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec… Miek Gieben
- Re: [dnsext] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dn… Scott Rose