[DNSOP] CPE devices doing DNSSEC

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 07 March 2014 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30CB1A016A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:05:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndY9dLyHg64H for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82871A0164 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org []) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E762F2383F0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:05:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost []) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D209160060 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:06:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (dhcp-b59a.meeting.ietf.org []) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBBD4160049 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:06:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F42810CD58F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 21:05:24 +1100 (EST)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:05:24 +1100
Message-Id: <20140307100524.2F42810CD58F@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sRfZqGCb6dCWO-McP44eJh4ST94
Subject: [DNSOP] CPE devices doing DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:05:49 -0000

	What do we expect CPE devices to implement to update parent
	zones.  100 different things to cover all the update methods
	registrar's come up with.  Or do we say do exactly one
	method that works in all situations?

	We already have a problem today were they can't do dynamic
	update to every dynamic dns provider because they implement
	non standard adhoc methods rather that one standardised

	I know Registrars don't like to be told what to do but this
	is a case where interop from 100's of CPE providers and
	1000000's of parent zones made up of RRR zones and non RRR zones
	needs to work reliably without lots of choice.

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE:	+61 2 9871 4742		         INTERNET: marka@isc.org