ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaled mandates?

2010-07-22 09:26:31
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:56:00PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
 Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which
is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as
to whether that ruling would also effect how Secure DNS Services are run
and if so what would it do.

The ruling is called California v Khaled and is getting significant
traction here in the State of California in all courts.

I'd suggest that the IETF mailing list is probably not the best place
to discuss whether or not a particular ruling regarding traffic
cameras might be applicable to Secure DNS services.  That's really
best done by a lawyer whom you have hired to represent you and your
specific interests.

I will note that one of the things begged by your rather opened-ended
question is an assumption about the goals of Secure DNS.  If it is
just to make it harder for DNS spoofing attacks to succeed, the answer
is probably nothing (but check with a lawyer if you want to be sure;
IANAL and I don't play one on TV).  If the goal is to establish a
binding between a DNS name and an IP address which is suitable to be
considered evidence in either a civil or criminal court of law, that's
a different question.

It's not clear to me that this latter goal is one that was considered
one of high importantance when the Secure DNS design was first
proposed --- or whether it's a goal that we should try to have now.
This is especially true since there are a huge number of legal
jourisdictions involved, and what might satisfy one appellate court
might not satisfy another.

Best regards,

                                        - Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf