IETF Logo Mail Archive

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)

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Thu, 09 January 2020 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6948120025 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 23:13:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Zzab70nRlvM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 23:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D676120020 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 23:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 81D862B0D93; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 02:13:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 02:13:32 -0500
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: 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)
Message-ID: <20200109071332.GD73491@straasha.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <87E116C31DAF1434C3C3937F@PSB> <CALaySJJoeBVnsc300eD0d0Kpqan-n2U_ckmr0OCpmOSy=s9w=w@mail.gmail.com> <ba1a85de-ad32-d0b4-5174-7fcbc12324c5@network-heretics.com> <16161.1578432811@localhost> <f6d91d93-5dc7-01a7-b03c-72f7cac32daa@mozilla.com> <CAChr6Sx1KyVjT7-gw1eR3V4BQ4JAfH3W+Hpco4hKMSff++P8Cw@mail.gmail.com> <b02ca8c6-c276-185d-b2c4-73625786a335@network-heretics.com> <CAChr6SziGiRwgkdmmBdwjiwxXCgcr5tGKNUBn2RVqaah3yZ75Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SziGiRwgkdmmBdwjiwxXCgcr5tGKNUBn2RVqaah3yZ75Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UbDq7Aqo0KsM-dl_EIv0dGRvbig>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 07:13:36 -0000

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:31:00PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:

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

There is no debating that some find it useful.  Their use-cases
(priorities) may be different from yours.  That is, there's nothing to
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.

The base insecure DNS, SMTP, TCP are older still, and we continue to use
them and build on them.  There's no meat on this bone of contention, and
it is in any case a digression.  Let's move on.

-- 
    Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email