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

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Wed, 20 June 2018 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.org>
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 31D4613111C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 NylPgX9S_D8x for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time-travellers.org (c.time-travellers.nl.eu.org [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44EAE131112 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [207.244.70.35] (helo=[127.0.0.1]) by time-travellers.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1fVijT-0000ud-Hp for dnsop@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:25:31 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <6C8533C2-6510-4A0E-A7EA-50EB83E43A7D@isc.org>
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
Message-ID: <96026eab-dc48-e814-a21c-85a5acdcb679@time-travellers.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:23:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6C8533C2-6510-4A0E-A7EA-50EB83E43A7D@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/V4eo8E2HraPbWuHQYLt1sTiW2ls>
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 19:23:50 -0000

Ondřej,

Ondřej Surý:
> as far as I could find on the Internet there are only SIG(0) implementation in handful DNS implementations - BIND, PHP Net_DNS2 PHP library, Net::DNS(::Sec) Perl library, trust_dns written in Rust and perhaps others I haven’t found; no mentions of real deployment was found over the Internet (but you can blame Google for that)...
> 
> Do people think the SIG(0) is something that we should keep in DNS and it will be used in the future or it is a good candidate for throwing off the boat?

My guess is that any time you ask this working group if a feature is
important in DNS, the answer will be "yes", even if not a single system
is using it anywhere on the Internet and beyond.

I wonder if there is any metric that dnsop would agree on to determine
whether a DNS feature is useful or not?

Cheers,

--
Shane