IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] perhaps we should reintroduce "resimprove"

Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br> Thu, 09 February 2012 18:02 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 5081A21F85C3; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:02:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1328810525; bh=YmX7pxVLwpKX0W0x/yYXpoRgsF/7HUZREqdt9WIRHjU=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=SY4NSI7aYMYyvEIhPyU+e+4MQguFrNOUfJMQsUlB3b6YRkfWx8dcj6TfEedG+lyAS pOsDe6zcC3aQ8Fqil2V1TPXX9bBjAOHLkGSRAQJjdFXtY0+UE6emnrIGeAscd7Woh+ J/VZrZQb4Wjv+ouWklrfHnhjT2B0Kr5yXGd7+xFc=
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 6A35421F85C3 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:02:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 8o8FqMzeoUvo for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clone.registro.br (clone.registro.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:2::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D196021F85C0 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by clone.registro.br (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E909EE04A7; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:02:01 -0200 (BRST)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:02:01 -0200
From: Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Message-ID: <20120209180201.GF86405@registro.br>
References: <4F33E1A6.4030902@isc.org> <20120209172318.GI15698@mail.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120209172318.GI15698@mail.yitter.info>
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] perhaps we should reintroduce "resimprove"
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 Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 12:23:18PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:09:26PM +0000, paul vixie wrote:
> > 
> > i now propose that we dust off this draft, remove (B) and section 3, and
> > progress it not as an improvement but as a security and resiliency
> > requirement (so, a proposed standard) in the face of the "ghost domain"
> > problem.
> 
> > with five shows of support i would consider the editorial work involved
> > here to be worth doing.
> 
> Do you consider it possible to get done and through WGLC before Paris?
> (FWIW, no hat, I do not.)

Don't You think we should treat this orthogonally to the dnsext
shutdown ?

Clarifications and corrections will continue to show regardless of the
existence of dnsext.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email