Re: Last Call comment on draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 11:27 -0700 8/27/07, Ted Hardie wrote:

After reading the  document, I do not believe it has
sufficient detail to be advice to IANA.

I agree with that. I've sent details on this privately to the editor, WG chair, and IESG secretary as that is mostly a matter of mechanics.

I think even that is an inaccurate reflection of this document.
"Should the IETF instruct the IANA to set up this registry?" would
be a closer reading, at least in my opinion.  My answer to that
question is no.

After getting my head up out of the registry operations quicksand I am becoming increasingly convinced that setting up a DLV at IANA is the wrong step to take.

	The second is that these instructions essentially
force the use of at least two DLVs.

That's very convincing to me. Having a second DLV operator doesn't benefit the public Internet enough to ask IANA to take on the extra role.

And yes, if there is to be DNSSEC anywhere the public Internet root zone ought to be signed.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]