Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uni

Thanks for the comments. While digesting them, I have one comment:

> On 6 mar 2015, at 07:14, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> Generally, while I think you should warn that URI records may
> cause some risks that do not exist with, e.g., conventional name
> to address mappings (note that the "downgrade attack or not"
> considerations above would apply equally well to:
>
>  foo.example.com.  IN A 10.2.0.44
> being diverted into a response of
>  foo.example.com.  IN A 10.0.0.6
>
> (which would be, historically, a likely upgrade attack, but it
> has nothing to do with URI records but is equally preventable by
> an integrity check.))
>
> As long as there is a warning, I really don't care very much
> what you say, but whatever you do say should be as accurate as
> possible.
I also see tons of zeroconf stuff (Apple Bonjour) using DNS already today in 
the geographically local context without much DNSSEC.

   Patrik

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail