On 6.2.2018 17:13, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 6 Feb 2018, at 8:04, Petr Špaček wrote: > >> On 6.2.2018 13:22, Tony Finch wrote: >>> A. Schulze <s...@andreasschulze.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-NNNN" is more descriptive and specific. >>>> I also prefer that longer variant. >>> >>> Yes, more friendly for web searches if someone is wondering about weird >>> queries. >> >> Bonus points if we can get a number reserved by RFC editor, it would >> allow us to use name like >> test-rfc0000-is-ta-NNNN >> test-rfc0000-not-ta-NNNN >> >> That would be super awesome. > > ...and super-unlikely, given the history of the RFC Series. > >> Is something like RFC number pre-allocation possible? > > Sometimes (rarely), after Working Group Last Call. That's why I > suggested "kskroll-sentinel" since those words are in the WG draft name, > and will probably appear in the IETF Datatracker forever.
Fine. Now we need to have something actionable, e.g. set of names for Geoff to test. Can we have couple proposals and test them in one go, so results are comparable? I've gathered these: kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-NNNN kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-NNNN is-ta--NNNN not-ta--NNNN I propose longer but more descriptive variant: kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-yes-NNN kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-no-NNNN (I imagine that real meaning of name "kskroll-sentinel" will be known by dozen people but hunders or thousands people will encounter it in tcpdump, so why not make life easier for them. It costs almost nothing...) Do we have other proposals? -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
