Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", like the other DNSSEC-related registries. You are proposing a bureaucratic solution without thinking about the operational impli

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

> On Jun 18, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote: >> The 2nd registry >> Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms >> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1 >> >>

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

Hi Tommy, My point in more detail: DNS itself Is a key-(multi)value database. Embedding another key-value list into RR data seems misconceptual. Moreover, this embeeded stuff od somewhat Complex, with different requirements on the keys, their order, and values. However, i havent found any bett

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:39 AM John Levine wrote: > In article 01gd...@mail.gmail.com> you write: > >> Yes. Leveraging the fact that the IETF community is in fact a community > >> seems worth the effort to have the references in registries be useful > to a > >> new developer a decade in the fu

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

In article you write: >> Yes. Leveraging the fact that the IETF community is in fact a community >> seems worth the effort to have the references in registries be useful to a >> new developer a decade in the future. > >OK. In that case you and I disagree. > >My reasoning is that (as above) these

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 18:12, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 19, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > What's your reasoning for why there needs to be community review before > there is a code point assigned? > > Historically, the quality of algorithm descriptions in early drafts has > been v

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:11 AM Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 19, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > What's your reasoning for why there needs to be community review before > there is a code point assigned? > > Historically, the quality of algorithm descriptions in early drafts has > bee

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

On Jun 19, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > What's your reasoning for why there needs to be community review before there > is a code point assigned? Historically, the quality of algorithm descriptions in early drafts has been variable. What the author considers sufficient and obvious,

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:38 AM Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 18, 2020, at 9:20 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, at 01:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph > >> draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", lik

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

On Jun 18, 2020, at 9:20 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, at 01:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph >> draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", like the other >> DNSSEC-related registries. > > I think you me

Re: [DNSOP] Hybird Resolver/ DNS invariants

On Friday, 19 June 2020 01:50:13 UTC Davey Song wrote: > Dear Paul, > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 00:03, Paul Vixie wrote: > > as you know, synchronizing the root zone (RFC 7706) solves almost > > none of the problem of occasional connectivity, since so many other > > NS, DS, glue, key, and signatur