Subject: [keyassure] draft-ietf-dane-protocol

From: Steve Schultze <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:28:21 -0500

I'm in favor of a version of Matt's text in section 3.0:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/keyassure/current/msg00923.html

Any reason why that's not a good idea?  I'm not totally sure whether the text should go into the intro to section 3 or in 3.1.  I'm not really a fan of the "The preceding paragraph is probably wrong" parenthetical in 3.1.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:04:26 -0800

On 1/18/11 5:28 PM, Steve Schultze wrote:
> Any reason why that's not a good idea?

We have so far chosen not to get into any nuts-and-bolts of DNSSEC 
checking, and this would send us far down that path. It is a big step, 
and we should consider it carefully. FWIW, I think we should take that 
step because we have gotten no support from the DNSEXT WG on last-mile 
DNSSEC, but I know others here don't agree.

> I'm not totally sure whether
> the text should go into the intro to section 3 or in 3.1.  I'm not
> really a fan of the "The preceding paragraph is probably wrong"
> parenthetical in 3.1.

Nor are Jakob and I, of course. But early honesty helps shine a 
spotlight on places that need work.