to the list, after Paul Wouters replied to me privately. I realize now this was Paul W responding to Paul V. I thought in my response below I was replying again to Paul V!
My apologies .. Shumon. On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:45 AM Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
