Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.txt

Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se> Tue, 17 July 2012 19:11 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 CA56821F8703; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1342552272; bh=DyGvTN05/jOPXqURYx8/lLrcPxfcQK/aOWaJepw5muY=; 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=vPLw8VTZcyWaxZUa9LB3v0cRxR52bdXFJth2DPTzDqSlV5BtmatJD65WaUxxRt5bY tV4z5BnkZG3yq416NOtZEPZoH/x+A2rLyPmtXNfcZrghlkkna2Qx09NIoWqMERyth/ sw387cmpWYfS+3mxUz7ukGUimCVBfKqt4SHdz4TY=
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 F204221F8621 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Br2kCCQ+1FxW for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4126521F8703 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783A71435A9C7; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se
Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFNdgKQmAgcc; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.165.72.14] (unknown [192.165.72.14]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462AB1435A9C0; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
From: Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <3604D7DA-3A1F-475F-8EB1-1787BF8A3023@vpnc.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:11:53 +0200
Message-Id: <B7600256-6DC7-4B6F-AB4B-0A4562365286@frobbit.se>
References: <6EC11B57-B164-4214-AADE-E552D9B21753@frobbit.se> <85D2BE55-4028-468E-A07B-4F3B7406B68A@vpnc.org> <5A201A57-A13E-4021-A012-CEA37DA5DBED@shinkuro.com> <C9946CED-F26A-4BF3-9DF4-E910655270D7@vpnc.org> <F543CB66-BECE-4D5A-A46F-27A35DB05089@frobbit.se> <3604D7DA-3A1F-475F-8EB1-1787BF8A3023@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-07.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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

Thanks!

   Patrik

On 17 jul 2012, at 21:06, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On Jul 17, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 
>> Is this existence of this parameter for you a blocking factor for this document?
> 
> I thought I was clear in my earlier message: no, not blocking. I bring it up now because it is a useless addition that is trivial to remove.
> 
>> I do not mind if you expand a bit because I must as shepherd of this document understand whether what you feel is something that still is in the rough part of rough consensus, and if so that your view should be paused until there is IETF last call and your input goes to IESG.
> 
> I say "useless" because, unlike NAPTR, the ordering of the lists is optional. Because of this, the optionality of the preference ordering makes the ordering useless. That is, if I say I know "SHA1, SHA256" you don't know if I prefer SHA1 (because it's shorter, and I don't care about anything above 60 bits of strength) or whether I have no preference and listed them in numeric order or whether that order was set by my software. That is, you cannot determine if my order is surprising or uninteresting. This invalidates any value to the ordering.
> 
> If the WG leaves in the ordering, I believe that we need to add "however, interpreting the order in answers will lead to wrong conclusions". If I'm wrong and someone can show how a recipient can tell the difference between answers that were ordered on purpose and those that were not, that's great: we can add it to the draft.
> 
>> I can understand if you see these kind of parameters in DNS "go away", but so far we have sort of used them in many RR Types, and maybe what you ask for is a generic change in how we design new RR Types. But the question is whether *THIS* document should be where we take that step on "generic design decisions".
> 
> I do *not* want the parameters to go away: I said that I support the publication of this document. All I am saying is that the optional ordering is useless and will cause problems for validators ("where do I read why I should have a preference") and zones who make false assumptions on the order seen.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> 

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