> On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:13 AM, Benno Overeinder <be...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote: > > On 07/02/2018 10:12, Warren Kumari wrote: >> Whoops, last message was blank; finger fail. >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Petr Špaček <petr.spa...@nic.cz> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> <no hats> >> >> I personally like "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-NNNN", or "is-ta--NNNN". >> >> I really do not like >> "kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-yes-NNN" as: >> $echo "kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-yes-NNN" | wc -c >> 62 > > > For what it is worth, I am with Warren, and particular like > "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-NNNN".
+1 Matt _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
