On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 01:11:46PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
As for RFC 5011, it is a crock. We should be using something like
CDS with start and end dates plus retry timers.
[…]
That
said there are some really broken EDNS implementations out there.
[…]
We also have a the following draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue
which covers this as well as other issues.
To be clear, then, the reduction of available port numbers that is the
result of A+P is solved by some proposals in a couple Internet-Drafts,
neither of which yet has critical mass, and that depend on a feature
of the DNS that is still broken in lots of places more than 10 years
after its specification? Also, you think that the only actual DNSSEC
TA rollover mechanism we standardized is a crock?
I'm just trying to calibrate what "perfectly fine" means before I send
my comments on the A+P standards-track request.
Thanks,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com