On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 04:12:05PM -0400, The IESG wrote:
- 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) IANA Registry'
draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana-00.txt as an Informational RFC
1. Should it be published?
The draft should not be published for at least the following reasons:
o Means of Trust
Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- is this just an ersatz root signing mechanism? Why is this appropriate
given that the alternative is simply a signed root zone?
For me, this is a key question. It seems to me that the _only_ reason
DLV (and this IANA action) is needed is to get around
--On Friday, 24 August, 2007 09:27 -0400 Thomas Narten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- is this just an ersatz root signing mechanism? Why is this
appropriate given that the alternative is simply a signed
root zone?
For me, this is a key question. It
I've sent private comments on the draft already, as I see the draft
as an under specification of what is required to operate a registry
(a registry is not just DNS). None of those comments are significant
enough for a broad audience, just requesting better descriptions of
the work needed to
Part of the issue with IANA-instruction documents is that they fail to
expose the considerations that have motivated the proposed action, and
it's this lack of context during the review phase that tends to provoke
a critical reaction.
I suspect that what the IESG is asking for is a roundabout
Part of the issue with IANA-instruction documents is that they fail to
expose the considerations that have motivated the proposed action, and
it's this lack of context during the review phase that tends to provoke
a critical reaction.
I suspect that what the IESG is asking for is a
- in the absence of full signing of the DNS from the root down, just how
many DLV spots must a resolver look in? It seems that proliferation of
DLV lookup points is no better (and arguably much worse) than the
original problem of piecemeal DNSSEC deployment - that of key hunting.
Mark,
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:54:41AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
This proposal is a way to move forward without waiting for
the politics of signing the root to resolve. This is
the classic case of the network routing around a blockage.
I do believe that it will eventually resolve
Mark,
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:54:41AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
This proposal is a way to move forward without waiting for
the politics of signing the root to resolve. This is
the classic case of the network routing around a blockage.
I do believe that it will eventually
% dig @ns.iana.org . axfr | grep IN DS | awk '{ print $1 }' | sort
| uniq
:-)
Regards,
-drc
On Aug 23, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Mark,
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:54:41AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
This proposal is a way to move forward without waiting for
the
A Last Call mesage was sent earlier today. It was missing an important
word in paragraph (b). Please respond based on this text.
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) IANA Registry'
11 matches
Mail list logo
