I support this. DLV was a mistake and making it historic should close that
door.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:42 PM The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
> (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Moving DNSSEC Lookaside
> Validation (DL
> I support this. DLV was a mistake
yup. but resistance was futile.
randy
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Bush wrote:
>> I support this. DLV was a mistake
>
> yup. but resistance was futile.
It was very useful at the beginning, especially before the root was signed. I
used it to get DNSSEC from a number of TLDs and could not have done that
without DLV.
It served its purpose well, and it shou
On Thursday, 5 September 2019 20:48:34 UTC Paul Wouters wrote:
> [DLV] was very useful at the beginning, especially before the root was
signed.
> I used it to get DNSSEC from a number of TLDs and could not have done that
> without DLV.
me too. if the first production use of dnssec had been the da
On 9/5/19 2:07 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
sam weiler argued unsuccessfully that trust should not be required to follow
the delegation path, and with a decade or more of perspective i can see that
he was right. however, DLV as specified and implemented would not be the
mechanism i'd propose if non-hie
> I remember scaring a bunch of people at a NANOG meeting by suggesting
> that we should have an alternate method of establishing trust, and
> that method should be non-hierarchical (or perhaps
> "counter-hierarchical"). I believe I used "DLV-like" to describe it
> and I remember the reactions I go
Oh, and a quick update -- someone poked me off-list to point out that
I should have updated the Last Call text to note that this doesn't get
published as an RFC directly, instead:
"An individual or a working group posts an Internet Draft containing
an explanation of the reason for the status change
On Thursday, 5 September 2019 21:46:12 UTC Randy Bush wrote:
> ...
>
> dlv had no particular trust model. ...
as one of its janitors, its trust model was pub-sub. that's why it could never
have scaled. wot is what's actually needed for this. follows-delegation is
neither the best or worst way
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : Message Digest for DNS Zones
Authors : Duane Wessels
Piet Barber
Dear DNSOP,
The primary change between -00 and -01 is the simplification of the
verification protocol
when multiple ZONEMD RRs are present, per the on-list discussions.
Additionally Shane Kerr kindly updated his implementation and confirmed that
his and the
author's implementations produce and
10 matches
Mail list logo
