Re: let's talk about RFC2136bis

[Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>]

Paul Vixie wrote:

> the process used by dnssec-editors@ has appeared to be somewhat successful,
> so let's see if we can get some agreement on various upgrade issues between
> RFC2136 and its inevitable "bis" version.  olafur, if we could have a few
> minutes to discuss this in san francisco, it might help to get a new document
> out immediately thereafter.
>
> --------
>
> #1 -- scope of changes
>
> [snip]
>
> #2 -- rr comparison
>
> [snip]
>
> #3 -- rr type restrictions
>
> [snip]
>
> #4 -- clarification of domain owner naming
>
> [snip]
>
> #5 -- edns size issues
>
> [snip]
>
> #6 -- edns request-id field
>
> [snip]
>
> #7 -- order of permission checking
>
> [snip]
>
> #8 -- clarifying server selection
>
> [snip]
>
> #9 -- forwarding, threat or menace?
>
> [snip]
>
> #10 -- security improvements
>
> [snip]
>
> #11 -- misc issues from an unnamed party
>
> [snip]
>
> #12 -- issues from another unnamed party
>  
[snip]

> th-th-that's all folks.  what else has anybody got against 2136 that they'd
> like to see fixed in 2136bis?
Remove the more-or-less arbitrary restriction on dynamic addition or 
deletion of SOA RRs. The "security improvements" changes you've proposed 
above would seem to moot the security-based objections to this, and the 
only other objections of which I'm aware -- concerns (one might say FUD) 
over how dynamic zone-creation/removal would work in practice -- confuse 
(IMO) implementation issues with protocol ones.

                                                                       
                           - Kevin



--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>