IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 20 June 2018 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 DB66F130DD9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 01:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 hhnQPPkVpYYZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 01:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06F7F1292AD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 01:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:40688) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1fVYpM-000tZV-2b (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:50:56 +0100
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:50:56 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>
cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <B47F8190-34B5-4F40-83D6-4CAB8A0C8EC3@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806200948260.916@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <6C8533C2-6510-4A0E-A7EA-50EB83E43A7D@isc.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806192154190.916@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <B47F8190-34B5-4F40-83D6-4CAB8A0C8EC3@isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1870870841-1814864215-1529484656=:916"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LNxi4HwD8PT6Eh0VSErOPxmWCQc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 20 Jun 2018 08:51:01 -0000

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote:

> But is it really used like this? Or will it ever?

My point was that SIG(0) has use cases that are currently impossible
because of lack of implementations. So it's really hard to tell if it is
worth the effort. It's like trying to judge the need for a bridge by
counting the number of peopple swimming across the river.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Viking, North Utsire: Variable 4, becoming northwest 4 or 5, occasionally 6
later. Moderate, occasionally rough at first in north. Rain then showers.
Good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email