IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Summary WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa

Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com> Thu, 19 January 2012 19:12 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 CDAA521F85C7; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:12:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1327000330; bh=LaqoymdLmfNZBgv5G7RPULjKxNvwHP3VY7uKhsYQ/G8=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=ZN+qJzLkAobQ2mCZ/tFlKGTOrQhuAyOPTlP++TkNfS49U7F+e7ucu3Cvtka3ga1ka zs3Ip1lO68/XI0Pv3WvujwPltgC1rbeFpDqyxQnM6pMvulsMjTGGBvkkZVDVvnDXyp 9pdP1U0UHjGOFsL45p31N4XsdmKSg7P89Ul5BvYc=
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 4019321F85C7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 nxQbeKedfo2U for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B7721F857D for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ghrr16 with SMTP id r16so219582ghr.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:12:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7BDIZWKrZCqN5urRbGb7OwG7vbycNDvW8ffAk519PLM=; b=JmHKsRv9UiV0AAqJhd6tDDFz8Ytcl2q+UponF5GopDjALm3E66R22NBpZRsax4+DRf IZ8+UhcIJlXQUGgmvE0Ipf41RK8uhCXPP73Tp02Prd6CB8ZkZP02AbJICE9F2/llAdsF Ll/pwvOHyE1MccZ799HATyBD8VRptleZzl9wA=
Received: by 10.101.144.18 with SMTP id w18mr9290391ann.88.1327000328176; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.13.151] ([12.52.73.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s7sm858175anc.4.2012.01.19.11.12.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:12:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F186AFB.1050702@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:11:55 -0500
From: Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
References: <4F185979.1060105@ogud.com> <4F186400.8010604@gmail.com> <7274B0C0-4BB3-4611-B495-91B123F0AECA@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <7274B0C0-4BB3-4611-B495-91B123F0AECA@vpnc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
Cc: DNSEXT Working Group <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Summary WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa
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

Hi Paul:

So, was the WGLC the one in July 2011? Olaf did not reference that WGLC,
which was eons ago (half a year). Now, there seem to have been three
versions since  2 1/2 weeks, with nothing prior for 5 1/2 months. Some
more clarity, except a short line that seems to be out of the blue would
be appreciated.

I am curious as to why "nobody" supported squeezing down message sizes.
Was this seriously considered? What was the technical rationale for not
supporting my modest suggestions.

What is your rationale for not supporting this???

Shouldn't technical merit of comments be discussed openly. I thought
IETF was all about openness.

Rene

On 19/01/2012 2:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rene Struik wrote:
>
>> I may have missed this, but I never saw an announcement for WG last call.
> That statement is completely untrue: you responded to that announcement.
>
>> More importantly, though, the last versions do not really seem to have
>> addressed my comments sent prior to the July 2011 meeting in Quebec.
> Correct. You asked for many changes, and no one else supported your request.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>


-- 
email: rstruik.ext@gmail.com
Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658
USA Google voice: +1 (415) 690-7363

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email