Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-07.txt

From: Dave Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:39:48 -0400

Bob Harold writes:
> I don't understand this section:
> 
> 5.1.1. On-the-fly Signatures
>  ...
>    One possibly mitigation for addressing the risk of keeping the zone
>    signing key online would be to continue to keep the key for signing
>    positive answers offline and introduce a second key for online
>    signing of negative answers.

How dreadfully embarrassing.  I'm responsible for that.  It was an
underdeveloped thought about how multiple keys can possibly be used in
a zone to sign different answers.  Clearly in the form it made it into
the draft it's a bit nonsense.  My apologies.

It's kind of orthogonal to the main thrust of the BULK proposal though
so I expect this bit will just disappear in the next version.

---

From: Dave Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:44:33 -0500

[email-masked] writes:
>       Title           : BULK DNS Resource Records
> 	Filename        : draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-07.txt

Changes are here:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-06&url2=draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-07

The primary differences are to add a bit more text on the motivating
use cases to the introduction (not just for "wallpapering IPv6 reverse
space") and to remove the proposed Numeric Pattern Normalization
DNSSEC record from this particular draft.