Subject: Re: Forgery Resistance phase #2
From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
To: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:59:27 +0100
List-Id: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>

--On 28 July 2008 11:53:32 -0400 "Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The list is supposed to be as complete as possible, if there is anything
> missing feel free to bring it up.

I contribute these for completeness without expressing an opinion
as to their validity or otherwise:

1. There seems a body of opinion on namedroppers that replacing stub
   resolvers by full recursive caching resolvers improves forgery
   resistance.

2. Under "Deploy DNSSEC" some commentators have said a long pole in the
   tent of deployability is signing the root, hence DLV and DLVPTR
   are relevant to the topic in that they could speed deployment of
   DNSSEC.

I think it's a useful list BTW. Another useful list would be to define
the problem space(s) being addressed as there was some debate about that
too.

Alex

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>