Subject: Re: the KEY debate

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 18:56:17 +0000

> >until you do that, all you're doing is trying to take something away from
> >the "appdev" community, and they will fight you to the last binary digit,
> >regardless of the truth of your arguments.
> 
> I would think that a better approach would be to document what 
> determines whether a design of a resource record is "good" or "bad." 
> The document would not need to be a tutorial to RR proposers as much 
> as it would be a resource for DNS reviewers to say "I don't like this 
> RR because of what's in section x.y."

that sounds like a great resource.  but it's not going to help "us" reach
consensus on key-restrict, even if it were finished (including all the
inevitable arguments about the validity of proposed section x.y) TODAY.

if you want the community to support the restriction of KEY to just DNS's
own security needs, then you will have to put a replacement on the table,
and i mean give these people a fish, don't just teach them how to fish.

--
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: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:21:22 +0000

> >Would [ISC] be willing to commit "BIND development resources" to
> >implement all these various foo-key records?

of course.  our charter, from www.isc.org, is

	... developing and maintaining production quality Open Source
	reference implementations of core Internet protocols.

> I would expect that we'd do what we used to do...rely on contributed code ;)

that's been truer in the past than in the present.  we don't "rely" as much
on contributed code as we once did.  however, please note that contributions
of code and equipment (and money) are always welcomed.