Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> writes:
- is this just an ersatz root signing mechanism? Why is this appropriate
given that the alternative is simply a signed root zone?
For me, this is a key question. It seems to me that the _only_ reason
DLV (and this IANA action) is needed is to get around the fact that
signing of DNSSEC zones is lagging. DLV and the registry is an attempt
to get around that.
Thus, it strikes me that this is embracing and extending DNSSEC. That
might be OK, if the relevent DNS WGs agreed that DNSSEC needed such
"help". But, as far as I can tell, the relevent DNS WGs have not
embraced this approach.
I would be troubled to see this go forward (with _any_ sort of IETF
seal of approval), without the consensus of the relevant IETF DNS
community behind it.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf