Subject: Re: timers draft and parent DS records

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:44:56 -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:22:50 -0400 Mike wrote:
MS> >While this document is primarily about resolvers, it also specifies
MS> >procedure for zone administrators (sections 5 and part of 4.3).
MS> 
MS> Actually, it doesn't.  Section 5 and much of section 4.3 are 
MS> informative, not normative.

Now we're just arguing semantics. s/specifies/outlines/

MS> One of the reasons for not adding your proposed language is that DS 
MS> updates are covered in part in section 2.4 of RFC 4035 [...]
MS> 
MS> If that document declines to discuss DS operations, it seems clear 
MS> this document should not (and indeed must not) create a normative 
MS> requirement on DNSSEC for things outside its purview (e.g. the DS 
MS> record).

Ok, first you say section 5 is informative, then imply that adding the
text I proposed would create a normative requirement? My text is just
as generic as the text you quoted from RFC 4035. It does not specify
how or what to do, just states that the DS record must be handled
'appropriately'.

At any rate, I think I've made my point as clear as I can. If the
working group doesn't see the value in a few lines of informative text
to help prevent zone admins from shooting themselves in the foot
(breaking chains of trust) when rolling keys, then so be it.

-- 
Robert Story
SPARTA