On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:13 AM Matthijs Mekking <matth...@pletterpet.nl> wrote:
> Hi, > > > A while back I was asked why BIND 9 still had code to do DLV. Good > question, and we asked our users if they would mind if we remove the > code. Almost everyone was okay with that. > > So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in BIND 9. But also I think it is > time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal to > everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed. > > Dan Mahoney cleared the only well-known DLV registry almost two years > ago. Here's a draft with discussion why also the protocol should go > away. We would like to hear what you think about it. > Yes please; DLV was a useful tool to get DNSSEC off the ground, but had long outlived its usefulness, and is now just extra code to fail. Rip it out, W > > Best regards, > > Matthijs > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > A new version of I-D, draft-mekking-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Matthijs Mekking and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-mekking-dnsop-obsolete-dlv > Revision: 00 > Title: Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status > Pages: 5 > Status: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mekking-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/ > > Abstract: > This document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and > reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
