On Apr 10, 2012, at 8:11 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:57:59 +0000, "Livingood, Jason" 
>>>>>> <[email protected]> said:
> 
> LJ> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors-00.txt
> 
> LJ> Feel free to share any other questions or feedback.
> 
> I too like the idea behind it, and have the following suggestions to
> support it:
> 
> 1) In addition to the following statement:
> 
>       Furthermore, a Negative Trust Anchor should
>       be used only for a short duration, perhaps for a day or less.
> 
>   I'd go ahead and insert MUST/SHOULD/MAY language as well (realizing
>   that if there is a document people will ignore it in, this is likely
>   to be one).  And then add some timing constraints too [reading the
>   rest of the thread after typing this, I note that Shane also
>   suggested an end time, but the proposal below also imposes a maximum
>   end-time allowable].

Perhaps a TTL equivalent as previously suggested, I agree we should look to add 
the MUST/SHOUD/MAY language for this.


>   Suggested rewrite:
> 
>       Furthermore, a Negative Trust Anchor MUST only be used for a
>       short duration, perhaps for a day or less.  Implementations MUST
>       require an end-time configuration associated with any negative
>       trust anchor.  Implementations SHOULD limit the maximum time into
>       the future to one day.  In other words, the configuration
>       directive will be invalid if it is missing an end-time or if the
>       end time is greater than "now" plus 86400 seconds.

Agreed.  Maximum time supported makes sense to me.

> 
> 2) I also suggest you rename the concept to "Negative Anchors of Trust"
>   and then sprinkle the document with statements like the following:
> 
>       NATs are not an appropriate long-term solution and if they need to be
>       used, they MUST be used only for short periods of time.
> 
>   (it's the two-birds-with-one-stone theory of RFC writing)

I got a good chuckle on this one.  We will have to think hard about this :-)

Thanks

Chris



_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to