Re: [TLS] TLS DNSSEC chain consensus text, please speak up...

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 5/16/18 2:20 PM, James Cloos wrote:
> The sixteen bit field harms no one, and when defined and used provides
> significant benefit to many.

It is one of the peculiarities of the IETF (and engineers
in general, I guess) that when we sit down to design a
protocol most people will start talking about data formats,
etc. rather than protocol semantics.  Allow me to suggest
that that's a mistake, and that data formats are secondary
to the behavior we expect from a protocol and to the data
needed to support that behavior.  Don't make that mistake
here.

And again, nobody has said that they intend to implement
the proposed mechanism - indeed, when asked, people have
said that they won't.  So I'm not really clear on the
benefit.

I'm compromising as a process matter (this needs to get
done) and because it's clear that nobody else will.

Melinda


-- 
Software longa, hardware brevis

PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
                 34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F