IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16

Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> Mon, 12 March 2012 19:20 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 9BFF621F899A; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1331580042; bh=q+p3sz3m/zTCxpIjtiDxH1HuW+UXqDhcxlUA8dvsINg=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=QS6agySFDZ8r8MS3vfC86tHPTs9qdp0vLtvTBjNGF2ZEwfrPK9dZhyp8B8DjO4jYY H4tJYI6D/loa8WuULWD682mkO1HC/Ounb5IRTzVW8BhTmm3/DXaZs94E0dL1ZWqlYA ytpqkt3MVf9SlVY/KthK9FMGTLWlia+37R4ZdhxQ=
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 688CA21F899F for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 KMW4pF37QhUu for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA7B21F8992 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2CJKbCU074580; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:20:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id q2CJKbM5074576; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:20:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:20:37 -0400
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
To: "W.C.A. Wijngaards" <wouter@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4F1FEB8D.1080703@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1203121516390.39342@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20120120054939.GD4365@mail.yitter.info> <20120120142243.GE4944@mail.yitter.info> <a06240801cb3f4c060c50@[192.168.129.98]> <4F1FEB8D.1080703@nlnetlabs.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:

> The section and appendix on CD bits are long.  Not wrong, but long.
> With the root trust anchor deployed, not having a covering trust anchor
> is unlikely.

I know.  As Andrew said in the summary thread, he insisted.

> Section 6.2 is correct.  But its tone is loose.  It is about lenient
> acceptance of the SEP flag.  Please say that, or say that the proper
> setting of the SEP flag is defined in its RFC.

There are actually two things in here: one is about the SEP bit, the 
other is about using DNSKEYs in odd ways.  I think both need to stay, 
but your point about loose language is well taken.  I propose to 
reword the first two paragraphs to clean that up.

Thank you for your review.

-- Sam

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email