>> History: some registries still think that DNSSEC is a new experiment >> and don't want to spend the effort to support it until it is "real". > >perhaps the apparent need for negative trust anchors has bolstered the >sense that DNSSEC is still experimental. or perhaps it's the fact that >after 19 years of development, the protocol still isn't finished and no >application depends on DNSSEC or behaves differently in the presence of >DNSSEC?
At my registry, development is prioritized by a combination of expected revenue and amount of customer whining. As far as I can tell, I am a double digit percentage of the whiners. Its Tucows, who already have a perfectly workable XML-based API that all of their clients use, so it's not like the development would be a vast amount of new and exotic code. We already update the name servers through the API. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
