RE: DNSCurve vs. DNSSEC - FIGHT! (was OpenDNS today announced ithas adopted DNSCurve to secure DNS)

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Joe Abley
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:06 PM
> To: Tony Finch
> Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: DNSCurve vs. DNSSEC - FIGHT! (was OpenDNS today 
> announced ithas adopted DNSCurve to secure DNS)
> 
> 
> On 2010-02-24, at 15:50, Tony Finch wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Shane Kerr wrote:
> >> 
> >> DNSSEC declares out of scope:
> >>      * the channel where DS records get added to the parent
> > 
> > Is that actually out of scope or just not specified yet?
> 
> The whole channel from end-user (registrant) to registry 
> cannot usefully be specified in any general way because there 
> is no consistent way of interacting with a registrar (in the 
> name of open competition) and no consistent 
> registry-registrar-registrant structure across all TLDs (for 
> reasons that surely would require more than one parenthetical 
> phrase to describe adequately).
> 
> The component that concerns communication between a registry 
> and a registrar does have one solution that has been 
> standardised in the IETF, however, which is being implemented 
> at some TLDs, I hear.
> 
>   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4310.txt

Implementation experience has uncovered some deficiencies in 4310.  A
proposal to address the deficiences is being developed as an individual
submission:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt

Scott