Re: DNSSEC is NOT secure end to end

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

 



 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => not only this is very arguable (for instance about the resource
   > exhaustion) but no hop-by-hop/channel security, even something as
   > strong as TSIG, can provide what we need, i.e., end-to-end/object
   > security (*).
   > PS (*): I use the common meaning of end-to-end, not Masataka Ohta's one.

=> I added it because hop-by-hop and end-to-end can be ambiguous when
hops and ends are not defined. In the context of DNS intermediate
entities are the caching servers so even I agree your argument is
valid it doesn't apply to *this* interpretation of the term end-to-end.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxx

PS: if you'd like to discuss about end-to-end arguments there is a
dedicated mailing list at IRTF. If you'd like to continue about the
trusted third parties as intermediate entities I believe the thread
you initiated is the best place.
_______________________________________________

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

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