IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] How Slack didn't turn on DNSSEC

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Wed, 01 December 2021 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901DC3A0A21 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:37:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 t9AVfSR38Qhc for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:37:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 574123A0A1F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B5832421535; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211201184909.32rsf3aopxpedh2j@crankycanuck.ca>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 19:37:12 +0000
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6858547-9D32-4990-807F-01C22F2B8B3C@rfc1035.com>
References: <20211130183809.04E8230CA390@ary.qy> <3F49C6AE-D270-4EF5-996B-26B808753350@dukhovni.org> <20211201184909.32rsf3aopxpedh2j@crankycanuck.ca>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/G0MhnMuzgtAZkOeiSebH2VxnRh0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] How Slack didn't turn on DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 19:37:28 -0000


> On 1 Dec 2021, at 18:49, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't that create a vicious circle in which the only way to start operating DNSSEC is already to have operated DNSSEC?

I think we’ve been in that vicious circle (or downward spiral) for several years now.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email