Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-pwouters-powerbind

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Thu, 30 April 2020 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 550B63A13DF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 eid8Z7vaj6UI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A1D33A13DE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A63212C05A; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Petr =?utf-8?B?xaBwYcSNZWs=?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CADyWQ+FLrTy0gy8iCyAPsDpiumDNQHX4TGPni43ThA=W3fmZew@mail.gmail.com> <c46c57f7-f99c-526c-cefc-8c385061f875@nic.cz> <CADyWQ+Gs3i372w8e5_tVO+sp_OX2EwBnCY=-0tH7YZrJK=bWyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:45:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+Gs3i372w8e5_tVO+sp_OX2EwBnCY=-0tH7YZrJK=bWyA@mail.gmail.com> (Tim Wicinski's message of "Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:52:59 -0400")
Message-ID: <yblzhas3awl.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/U3YFA9MXDPcOzzfqZvhDgm92wvA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-pwouters-powerbind
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:45:51 -0000

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> writes:

> Following up on Petr's suggestion that the "DNSEC Transparency" mechanism is documented
> and somewhat tested. 

FYI, the new version (-04) that I just published hopefully clarifies
better why this draft is useful with or without DNSEC Transparency.
DNSSEC Transparency would certainly be helpful for auditing purposes.
But protection is provided to validating resolvers even without it.  And
yes, DNSSEC Transparency probably needs our draft in order to reach scalability.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI