Subject: Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:57:15 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, [iso-8859-1] Ólafur[iso-8859-1]  Guðmundsson wrote:

> There was some further discussion if NSEC3 and OPT-IN are separative
> and/or required. Chair made the comment that if Opt-In feature is
> removed from NSEC3 then that requires changing the name to NSEC4.

I didn't catch this assertion at the time.  I don't understand why the
chair thinks a name change would be required nor why the name "NSEC4"
would be required.

Is this just an error in the minutes?

-- Sam

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

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:30:30 -0400

>Is this just an error in the minutes?

<chair hat on>
This is correct, each time a major change is made to the NSEC++ proposals
we will roll the trailing number to allow identification of whole proposals.
Removing Selective Security (i.e. Opt-in in marketing speak) is
a qualifying major change. Similarly dropping the iteration field that
some are uncomfortable with would also require a suffix change.

The plan is that when the privacy enhanced NSEC (NSEC++ or NSECn)
gets selected then we will select a new and better name
before the RFC is issued.
Right now we are (still) in the solution tuning space.

         Olafur