Re: [DNSOP] CPE devices doing DNSSEC

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Fri, 07 March 2014 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D85E1A012B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:21:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W7uO4n6ICh0T for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAA21A017B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p61so4701523wes.39 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 02:21:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ymwaa1Apwjm/2cRz0rBZyumr9VmrDS8wetpPVbfNesI=; b=YySZZtIMdtovNZcXRe0bpPrRtVXQgsiRFOLYAC2Sg6MYwJL7YpkinrDWDL8cU//Z+y ECBnitu0Jau4mXegng6Im9e3H1ZHoW5DIEejrkv5sn/HIZVrzPdAlyH/IbK62hzvi9tf uNolVixYr1btMCdZrjHZO2f4YKBF6byLy4UPE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=ymwaa1Apwjm/2cRz0rBZyumr9VmrDS8wetpPVbfNesI=; b=flS2Qp9ucrR24BC0Z4COPQuuahDRndLpUILbJMdPcC1enDSS1KIKIM28YjujhhVelb ta41fcN/HgV7pgEWMR+6Hhyc07SddQCXis0m0CANrlUh6GxCnLM0eQq+HTHm2WMuGvkA Dykbs7BmK8sl//MhWFOkGueeO2AIyq8eeNPc/8R44b3dShxIICO3Cs7qXGzDhPs1EF5f cFwxuP6PRkDJjdtzevbhozgpPzwqdzat3/tZU2L3DKBqMvyyOBUa7I+yLJjCwiJpKBHU VKQ0PYPyUMMmCNBm2up++/8dZQ2/Rounp680cJAUKyjHLEXpkUgRQ0XpfJWy+2mkHy2B BGMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmboGf54QIH8xqBCkdE66pDNAEL21W2z05Mr6Mp85KHeqRMIzpJDMIKSKG4LvA6xGAT4pMo
X-Received: by 10.194.75.225 with SMTP id f1mr2603378wjw.87.1394187696794; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 02:21:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-a333.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a333.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.163.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id az1sm7241977wjb.11.2014.03.07.02.21.35 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Mar 2014 02:21:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20140307100524.2F42810CD58F@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:21:34 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <3E0DC692-7BA0-4672-BB10-82B854BB69CE@hopcount.ca>
References: <20140307100524.2F42810CD58F@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-NNO5vNAYQvRQYOFjis0buRTgXY
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] CPE devices doing DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:21:43 -0000

On 7 Mar 2014, at 10:05, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> 	What do we expect CPE devices to implement to update parent
> 	zones.  100 different things to cover all the update methods
> 	registrar's come up with.  Or do we say do exactly one
> 	method that works in all situations?
> 
> 	We already have a problem today were they can't do dynamic
> 	update to every dynamic dns provider because they implement
> 	non standard adhoc methods rather that one standardised
> 	method.

https://xkcd.com/927/


Joe