Paul Mockapetris (pvm) == Original maintainer of .INT, Bill Manning (wcm) == second maintainer of .INT, ICANN == Current Maintainer of .INT.
DLV == DNS Lookaside Validation, a kludge to deal with islands of trust, published by Sam Weiler and productized by Internet Systems (nee Software) Consortia I think you have the NCC & RIPE & JANET acronyms … Now can you tell me what a PSL is? /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 14November2014Friday, at 2:59, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:19, Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote: > >> Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: >>> >>> I'd rather not see the RIPE NCC further endorse the DLV technology and >>> service by continuing to submit key material there. DLV was meant as a >>> temporary deployment aid and might have been a good idea at its time. >> >> We would like to stop using the DLV but some of our reverse zones cannot >> be validated without it because JANET has only signed ac.uk. > > Although you know I very much want to see DLV killed, that is not the matter > at hand. What we are discussing is the NCC's use of DLV for stuff that either > has no reason to be there or for domain names that have little or no > relevance/use to the NCC and the community. I would like to keep the focus on > that. In that context, Peter's comments go to the heart of the matter. > > There's a meta-issue too. Some years ago, long before the root was signed, > the NCC shoved stuff into DLV as a short-term kludge. It's continuing to do > that even though there seems to be no good reason for doing that any more. So > have the NCC reviewed its processes for DLV population or assessed whether > this activity is necessary or worthwhile? > > If you wish to continue discussing DLV's worth and relevance to the local > problem you mentioned, go ahead. But please do so on another thread. > >
