Warren, Secauth is different than CGA-TSIGe. CGA-TSIGe is about secure authentication for DNS (not for everything) and encrypting the whole DNS message with almost no clear change on DNS protocol.
So this is also can be an option and solution space for Dprive. I don't know what Stephen is saying. But secauth is clearly different or was different than CGA-TSIG/e. Thanks again for keeping it in agenda as I have prepared for it. Best, Hosnieh > >> > >> Your suggestion to improve summary is welcomed as I am working on > revision. > > > > Hang on - didn't we set up a mailing list [1] for exactly that > > purpose? I.e. to investigate and explain Hosnieh's proposal. > > AIUI that wasn't fruitful and the list was closed. > > Ah! Yes, I kinda, vaguely remember this -- I followed this list for a very short > while, but quickly decided I didn't have time (or interest). > It is useful to know that the consensus (after ~250 emails, so it was well > discussed) was not to pursue this or form a WG. I've just cherry-picked a few > emails from the list, and agree with the consensus. > > > > > I hope the dprive chairs will not allow repetition of all of that > > discussion here. That's nothing against Hosnieh or her proposal, but > > we should not divert this wg with such repetition. > > Agree. Apologies to Hosnieh, but due to the tight agenda time and the fact > that CGA-TSIG has already been discussed (in multiple venues), we will not be > able to provide you with discussion time. > W > _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
