On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:34 AM Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > no. i mean that the decision to require a "clear path" for DNSSEC meant > that > > no DNSSEC-dependent application has ever received investment. for > example, > > DANE is interesting in the SMTP market because that's small and geeky, > but > > will never be adopted by the Web because there are too many endpoints who > > cannot do stub validation and too many who will never be able to. > > You seem to think that the Web(PKI) not accepting DNSSEC was a technical > problem. While there were technical issues, I don't think the acceptance > or not had anything to do with technology. > Nope, I'm fully aware of all the non-technical issues and resistance (and have described some of that in the article). But there were a small contingent of web folks that were interested in DANE, and that might have been enough to gain an initial foothold there. You have to start somewhere. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
