On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:54 PM Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 21:37, Geoff Huston wrote: > > > Sometimes the lies we tell ourselves just get in the way. This is one > such case. > > Yup! > > My view for DNSSEC: > > Will be deployed in the same speed as new DNS software will include DNSSEC > by default and it will be turned on by default. Further, as the validation > is done by the ISP, the end user is not involved. > Yup, but it is critical that we do not screw up the KSK roll -- otherwise the response is likely to disable validation and "once bitten, twice shy" W > > My view for IPv6: > > Each person/organization that is responsible for IP addressing will > completely ignore IPv6 (i.e. have it as priority number 7 in a list where > only the first three can be dealt with) until the day when suddenly there > for that person/organization is zero IPv4 addresses to use. > > > I.e. we have for both IPv6 and DNSSEC passed the point where "normal" > advertisements help. > > Now the best help we get is by just adding time. > > Sure, we can still inform about both of the above, specifically the 2nd, > but will it help? > > Patrik > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane >
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
