IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74

Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net> Thu, 27 November 2008 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A6D3A69FD; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:18:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25B13A69FD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:18:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SZCPhvoabHb for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hiroshima.bogus.com (hiroshima.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42F93A6452 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hiroshima.bogus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hiroshima.bogus.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mARLHuf8049300 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:17:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from llynch@civil-tongue.net)
Received: from localhost (llynch@localhost) by hiroshima.bogus.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id mARLHuHV049297 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:17:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from llynch@civil-tongue.net)
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:17:56 -0800
From: Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net>
X-X-Sender: llynch@hiroshima.bogus.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74
In-Reply-To: <795D468C-F01D-427F-A83F-BF47B88A882E@NLnetLabs.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0811271316450.48608@hiroshima.bogus.com>
References: <20081126175013.94E2828C161@core3.amsl.com> <20081127164732.GH10931@unknown.office.denic.de> <492EE10D.70303@dcrocker.net> <1F527378-6BE8-4BC4-97AB-64B3D535E6C9@virtualized.org> <492EF9B9.5020702@isoc.org> <795D468C-F01D-427F-A83F-BF47B88A882E@NLnetLabs.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/Mixed; BOUNDARY="===============1274863749=="
Content-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0811271316451.48608@hiroshima.bogus.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

As I remember it, the flood in the NOC was much more exciting then
the DNSSEC bits.

- Lucy

On Nov 27, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Matthew Ford wrote:

>
> After all the years of FUD surrounding DNSSEC deployment, I feel  
> quite strongly that having the IETF do as you suggested and then be  
> able to point to 'no discernible impact' on the network would be a  
> significant milestone.


Data point: IETF65 (Dallas) had a DNSSEC enabled recursive nameserver  
(and, if I recall well, signed reverse zones). No impact noticed  
whatsoever. I wonder how many people actually knew.


--Olaf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email