> On Jul 10, 2026, at 16:47, Shumon Huque <[email protected]> wrote: > I am also fairly skeptical about solutions like this being "generally" > useful for client auth, due to the very low penetration of DNSSEC deployment > (though it could be one option amongst a set of solutions that cover a wider > range of use cases). The spec above was designed for specific scenarios where > the parties have deployed DNSSEC infrastructure available. And there is some > level of interest (we just got recently pinged by some Email folks about > this).
Agreeing with Shumon,
Everyone doesn’t need a safe at home. But some people do. So we have safes,
and they’re allowed to be in people’s homes.
Everyone doesn’t need security. But some people need security. So I find the
oft-repeated argument that everyone doesn’t need it, so therefore no one should
be allowed to have it, particularly tedious.
-Bill
Please consider the environment before using AI to process this email.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
