On 07/02/2018 10:12, Warren Kumari wrote: > Whoops, last message was blank; finger fail. > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Petr Špaček <petr.spa...@nic.cz> wrote: >>> >>> Fine. Now we need to have something actionable, e.g. set of names for >>> Geoff to test. >>> >>> Can we have couple proposals and test them in one go, so results are >>> comparable? >>> >>> I've gathered these: >>> >>> kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-NNNN >>> kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-NNNN >>> is-ta--NNNN >>> not-ta--NNNN >>> >>> I propose longer but more descriptive variant: >>> kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-yes-NNN >>> kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-no-NNNN > > <no hats> > > I personally like "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-NNNN", or "is-ta--NNNN". > > I really do not like > "kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-yes-NNN" as: > $echo "kskroll-sentinel-dnssec-root-trust-anchor-key-trusted-yes-NNN" | wc -c > 62
For what it is worth, I am with Warren, and particular like "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-NNNN". -- Benno -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
