Ted Lemon wrote:
sadly, this same engineering economic argument applies to SAV.
Do you mean that aggressive nsec in the cheese shop (which is now my
epithet for the root, apparently) is as important as SAV?
no. only that the benefit of doing either ANC (aggressive negative
caching, which warren didn't know was part of DLV at the time he named
this cheese-shop proposal) or SAV is remote/external, whereas the cost
and risk in each case is internal/local.
deploying ipv4 originally was a make-money proposal. if you deployed it,
you could make money. so everybody did. no discussion was required.
there were variations like peering that were also save-money proposals,
but fundamentally, turning on ipv4 was a rationally selfish act for all.
dnssec, ipv6, sav, anc, and a lot of other follow-on technologies, are
not make-money proposals, nor save-money proposals. it makes absolutely
zero business sense to do any of it unless you can be a late adopter
after others have (stupidly and/or selflessly) created a market for you.
i believe there's a section missing in RFC's, after IANA CONSIDERATIONS
and SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS. we need to specify ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
and expose feel-good proposals as what they obviously are, so that only
those with long term public good as their motive know to pay attention.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
