Re: utility of URNs and DNSSEC (was: Re: URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice)

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:21 PM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 1/7/20 8:41 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> Definitions of success vary. URNs are widely used in the information
>> sciences (e.g., national libraries), but that isn't as visible as the web.
>>
>
> Definitions of success do indeed vary. Without weighing in on this
> particular issue, the IETF does seem to be clinging to unsuccessful
> standards like URNs and DNSSEC. That doesn't mean they're bad, but it does
> mean those standards missed the mark in ways that would have been difficult
> to predict at the time they were drafted. This failure to reflect is
> disappointing.
>
> Actually, it means no such thing.
>

Check out the footnote in

https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2019-2/avoiding-unintended-harm-to-internet-infrastructure/


At the very least, one might concede that the usefulness of DNSSEC is a
matter of debate.

I actually happen to think DNSSEC might be useful once DNS transports are
encrypted, which the IETF has screwed up for 30 years. However, the DNSSEC
RFC is 15 years old, so I don't think it's generally productive to bring up
in new work.

thanks,
Rob