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

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