Re: [dbound] [EXTERNAL] Re: RDBD 01 Comments

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 22/03/2019 15:22, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 3/22/19 7:01 AM, Brotman, Alexander wrote:
>> The original intent was a providing a bit more of a hurdle to
>> falsifying responses.
> 
> I need to re-read things, but I don't recall why anything needs to be
> complex.  Why can't DomainA.example publish a (simple) record stating
> that it asserts a relationship with DomainB.example.  Ideally, vice versa.

Just a clarification: In this version, they can. The signature is
optional in the -01 version. (I may have mucked up how to describe
that for a new RRTYPE of course;-)

Cheers,
S.

> 
>> I didn't think we could realistically rely on DNSSEC as a requirement
>> (I'm imagining a situation where we have DNSSEC, and someone goes off
>> to Route53 to host a domain where DNSSEC is not supported last I knew),
> 
> IMHO, more and more things significantly benefit from (if not actually
> need) DNSSEC.  As such, I think we should quite coddling things that
> don't support DNSSEC.  Especially when we are designing things for the
> future.  Design for what we want.  At least unless there is a
> significant reason to not use something like DNSSEC.
> 
> Also, I do believe that if enough people want to use technologies that
> need DNSSEC, they can exert enough market pressure to get Route53 (et
> al.) to support DNSSEC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dbound mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound
>