On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Benno Overeinder <be...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> 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". > > +1 > > -- Benno > > -- > Benno J. Overeinder > NLnet Labs > https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ > > -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
