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

You might get a kick out of this expired but soon-to-be-revived document in
DNSSD: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sctl-service-registration-00

The principle is a bit different than what you're doing because there's no
DHCP (necessarily) involved, but otherwise it's the same basic idea.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:27 AM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> wrote:

> Well....  Mark did propose this many years ago:
> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2013-October/061619.html
>
> And based on that, I created a half-assed implementation using Net::DNS.
> Of course I never got around to polishing it up enough to actually put
> it into production. And definitely not to let the public see it...
>
> But it is still there on the TODO list in the back of my head, for one
> of those days when you suddenly have 20 hours to spare and nothing
> better to do.  Might happen.  You never know.  Or someone else will pick
> up the idea.  That's more likely, I guess.
>
> Anyway, I'd hate to see a potentionally useful feature like SIG(0) go
> away for no obvious gain.
>
>
>
> Bjørn
>
>
> Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> writes:
>
> > But if nobody uses that and nobody else implements this, it sort of
> beats the usefulness of the feature.
> >
> > Ondrej
> > --
> > Ondřej Surý — ISC
> >
> >> On 19 Jun 2018, at 23:20, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> SIG(0) is much superior for machines updating their own data  to TSIG
> as you don’t need a secondary storage for the TSIG key.   You can replace a
> master server without having to worry about transferring TSIG secrets off a
> dead machine. You just copy the zone from a slave and go.
> >>
> >> There are other scenarios where it is also superior like automaton
> delegating  In the reverse tree.
> >>
> >> No I don’t think it should go.
> >>
> >> It should be widely implemented so it can be used. There is a lot of
> self fulfilling prophecy in the DNS of people will never is this so we
> won’t implement it.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Andrews
> >>
> >>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 06:48, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> Ondrej
> >>> --
> >>> Ondřej Surý
> >>> ondrej@isc.org
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> DNSOP mailing list
> >>> DNSOP@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>