[dnsext] Wrap up of RFC 5155 issue

Edward Lewis <ed.lewis@neustar.biz> Mon, 31 December 2012 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ed.lewis@neustar.biz>
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 C5A1421F8872 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:18:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.983, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VI0XwltvSv9k for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net (eastrmfepo203.cox.net [68.230.241.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F36021F885E for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:18:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eastrmimpo210 ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20121231151845.GTSG29905.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo210> for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:18:45 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([68.98.141.167]) by eastrmimpo210 with cox id iFJk1k00T3cuADQ01FJkyA; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:18:45 -0500
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020202.50E1ACD5.007D,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=R/2B6KtX c=1 sm=1 a=d1qrA6Qzssd1VjKW2xnq3A==:17 a=hGBaWAWWAAAA:8 a=-K7kHbPOKKsA:10 a=iTfQMBlZIDBPs3Jvhl8A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=9k6G2--EmesA:10 a=I-_wS540UDb2Sqo0mjcA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=EbhN0ZHnQtW-2MOG:21 a=d1qrA6Qzssd1VjKW2xnq3A==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Authentication-Results: cox.net; none
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_81AE52F0-0FBC-476F-B159-861DC50D703D"
From: Edward Lewis <ed.lewis@neustar.biz>
In-Reply-To: <50DCCA35.1040401@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:18:53 -0500
Message-Id: <E356D848-EB8F-4ECB-A0C0-8277E657DA80@neustar.biz>
References: <20121206211100.14488.62562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <82AEB125-F110-40A1-A527-F18BB567EBE4@neustar.biz> <50CAF418.5060304@nlnetlabs.nl> <6B0BDF89-EDEB-44AF-83E8-6EDC599B3DAD@neustar.biz> <33CB3A55-89FE-4ABA-A9F8-0C537FADC15A@neustar.biz> <20121217203354.0B2E62D200AD@drugs.dv.isc.org> <95C76953-2D89-4EBC-86D7-BDBBE0379041@neustar.biz> <5DE8AF7F-92B3-48C8-8F5D-6800C4ED4B63@neustar.biz> <20121220104539.GA929@miek.nl> <FF0B61CC074B174BA3D9A01E8E6C04880DF911DB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1212201451160.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <FF0B61CC074B174BA3D9A01E8E6C04880DF972FB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <472E7A64-749B-4F0E-84B7-D0CA2CE1D613@dotat.at> <50D41289.80903@nlnetlabs.nl> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1212211447040.27013@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <50D48680.7080806@nlnetlabs.nl> <4257FFD6-2049-41B2-B13F-7606D129DE54@neustar.biz> <50DCCA35.1040401@nlnetlabs.nl>
To: dnsextmailing list <dnsext@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: Edward Lewis <ed.lewis@neustar.biz>
Subject: [dnsext] Wrap up of RFC 5155 issue
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:18:46 -0000

Looking over the discussion here and trying to figure out what should be done...and not wanting to let this hang too long.

If I had my choice, I'd try to simplify the protocol by signing the empty non-terminals, putting more restrictions on the chain, and so on.  I'd do this because as an operator, this would make the protocol easier to run, cheaper, simpler, and still get the objectives we want.

But in the spirit of an errata, I'll submit the words given to me from Roy (paragraphs shuffled as mentioned).  That's the process thing to do.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.