Geoff you are wrong. Titles should tell you what you are about to read especially technical documents. There are WAY TOO MANY RFC TO READ EVERYONE ON THEM.
If I had a TA for andrews.wattle.id.au the current title would indicate that I could test resolvers to see if there is a TA installed for it. The current draft *is not* generic. It is root TA specific. That needs to be reflected in the title. As for the label it can be used for more than rolling KSKs. It can be used to see what resolvers are supporting new TA *when you are not rolling keys*. The current name reflects *one* use, not all uses. Mark > On 23 Mar 2018, at 8:21 pm, Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> wrote: > > > >> On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:55 am, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: >> >> This title of this document DOES NOT match reality. >> >> "A Sentinel for Detecting Trusted Keys in DNSSEC” should be >> replaced by “A Root Key Trust Anchor Sentinel for DNSSEC”. >> >> kskroll-sentinel-<what>-<id> really needs something other >> than “kskroll” as the first field. “root-key-sentinal-<what>-<id>” >> really more clearly matches what it does. >> >> Any other changes that follow from these two changes” >> > > I personally think this is getting into bike shedding at this point. > > The title of the document is an adequate description of the content > and folk who want to know more should read the document, not guess > from the title! > > The label is a piece of syntactic convenience and is entirely > arbitrary. We could start an almost infinite discussion thread > over which label is better, but in the end its just a label. > > > regards, > > Geoff > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
