Subject: Re: Confirming the Nominet position

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:43:00 +0100

>>>>> "Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Sisson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Geoffrey> A common legal understanding covering all potential
    Geoffrey> DNSSEC users is unlikely.  It seems almost certain that
    Geoffrey> there will be operators that will deploy DNSSECbis
    Geoffrey> regardless of impact of NSEC RR traversal, and operators
    Geoffrey> that cannot deploy because of it.  These divergent
    Geoffrey> requirements deliniate the scope of the technical
    Geoffrey> problem.

If an operator's reasons for not deploying DNSSECbis are policy ones,
how can this be a technical problem?

--
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: "Jay Daley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 17:00:28 +0100

Jim

> how can this be a technical problem?

How does it sit with you if a technical change forces an operator into 
changing their policy? Are you saying that by default the policy must have 
been wrong in the first place?

Jay

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:52:30 +0000

> been wrong in the first place?

	Jay, w/o getting into the merits of any given policy, it seems 
	that the crux of the debate seems to be a tussle between what it
	technically possible and politically desirable.

	This particular tussle has occured many times in the past. One
	of my favorites is:  http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
	
	That aside, I suspect that -IF- one were to waive some of the 
	fundamental design principles of the DNS and DNSSEC, it would be
	possible to design a technical solution to your particular policy
	drivers.  I would not expect that technical solution to be useful
	to many/most others. As such, it would seem to inhibit broad use
	in an Internet-wide context.  But I could be wrong.

--bill

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:15:34 +0200

> how can this be a technical problem?

The technical problem is to find a solution that fit with the policy.
If the WG is not here to change the policy, it should not attempt to.

Regards,
Simon

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 18:44:10 +0100

> been wrong in the first place?

Hmm, don't policies continuously get rewritten in the light of the emergence
of new technologies (e.g. IPv6 or ENUM as Jim suggested) or changes or
evolutions to existing technologies (or their usage or abuse patterns)?

A policy is generally just best practice for the current technical environment
(within the confines of the law :).   Best practice changes, but that doesn't
mean what went before it was wrong.

Tim