Subject: Re: Another Proposal (was Re: DNSSECbis Q-11: KEY RRs at delegation points)

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 05:44:08 +0000

> Well, then, perhaps we should think of another way to doing it?

well, no.  we've pretty much blown any hope of significant deployment
of dnssec in 2003.  rearchitecture along the lines that you propose
would certainly make it cleaner, but would also remove any hope that
some of us may (secretly?) harbor for significant dnssec deployment
in 2004.  if i believed otherwise, then i'd publish the ednssec spec,
which is even more radical than the "SIG bit" you and ohta and olafur
have all independently proposed over the years, but which demotes all
dnssec data to the status of "out of band metadata" and explifies the
hop by hop issues.  but since i do not believe otherwise, and i do
not wish see ednssec lead inevitably toward an XSL replacement for
DNS, i'm going to simply recommend that we not change dnssec in any
nonessential way.  the SIG bit isn't "essential" it's merely "better".

--
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/>