Hi all, Following up on this; does the group agree that "_dnssec" is OK?
Thank you. Best regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist On Mon Apr 22 11:42:15 2024, scott.r...@nist.gov wrote: > On 20 Apr 2024, at 19:38, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Peter Thomassen wrote: > > > >> The authors certainly don't insist, but we'd need to pick a suitable > >> replacement for the "_signal" label. > >> > >> John proposed "_dnssec-signal" elsewhere in this thread. > >> > >> The authors would like to note that adding "_dnssec-" eats up 8 more > >> bytes, increasing chances that bootstrapping will fail due to the > >> _dsboot.<domain-name>._dnssec-signal.<nsname> length limitation. > >> Other than this (unnecessary?) use case narrowing, this choice seems > >> fine. > >> > >> That said, does this choice address your concerns? > > > > It would, but I would also be okay if it is just _dnssec. > > > > If the concern is that the label is too generic, “_dnssec” might be > too generic as well. If it is to be more precise, go with _ds-boot or > something more specific to the use case. I don’t have an > implementation in the mix, so it this isn’t a strong opinion. If the > group agrees _dnssec is fine, then I am fine with it too. > > Scott > > ===================================== > Scott Rose > NIST/CTL/WND > scott.r...@nist.gov > ph: 301-975-8439 > GoogleVoice: 571-249-3671 > ===================================== _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
