Re: [dnsext] historal root keys for upgrade path?

Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> Thu, 27 January 2011 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@xelerance.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABDC3A69B7 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:44:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lY0JPs3BIv4h for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newtla.xelerance.com (newtla.xelerance.com [193.110.157.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C253A698E for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tla.xelerance.com (tla.xelerance.com [193.110.157.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by newtla.xelerance.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E886FC522; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:46:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:46:58 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
In-Reply-To: <82vd1amfjm.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.1101271238410.19497@newtla.xelerance.com>
References: <alpine.LFD.1.10.1101251250040.30991@newtla.xelerance.com> <4D3F233C.7000900@vpnc.org> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1101251510140.30991@newtla.xelerance.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1101261442120.3329@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <AANLkTinCB-d2HWGY4kSOmfSCMNQ-D61keEE+1poTu11g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1101260958490.30991@newtla.xelerance.com> <82vd1amfjm.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] historal root keys for upgrade path?
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:44:22 -0000

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Florian Weimer wrote:

>> Remember this has to work on a product that has just been factory
>> defaulted to a config from 10 years ago, and the device is EOL with
>> no firmware upgrades.
>
> Why?  Where does this requirement come from?

It was an example.

The (perhaps implicit) requirement is that a device has no unneccessary
limitations that it becomes unusable at a specific expiry date within
a time period where the hardware and software is expected to still be
fully functional.

If a device becomes obsolete because the world has moved into unpredicted
direction the vendor could not forsee, that is acceptable. However, producing
equipment that you know is going to fail on a certain date only three years
into the future is most probably not.

Paul