IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] does making names the same NEED protocol changes at all?

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Fri, 25 February 2011 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA5C3A69F8; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:05:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81AD3A69F8 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:05:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 c+xjDghbjh7H for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46843A67F4 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:05:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:47167) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Pt23h-0001mC-WZ (Exim 4.72) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:06:29 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1Pt23h-0001u6-2U (Exim 4.67) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:06:29 +0000
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:06:29 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: dnsext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20110225174623.GP74938@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1102251802350.5244@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <8657EF4A-A08D-46E5-8917-553AE377CAD8@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <AANLkTikHm62x=+xWpSRyERw2cB31yZZhVkTT-90dgFjk@mail.gmail.com> <39EBBA76-22F1-4935-9300-B0078B229793@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <5A100E65-FB09-4556-AA5A-BF9FE0468DDA@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <AANLkTikECGtJm5WyDnX=s8zTERu89qLbFDebf8R1y4Pa@mail.gmail.com> <6AD400292B2C771C7FE70E8F@Ximines.local> <20110225143043.GB74938@shinkuro.com> <AANLkTimfhfsj65Vec61-_Q18+RoC1144Zf1E2bQhvt18@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1102251653290.5244@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <AANLkTinvqqGTGPeMXUcAv5iY1KGn_=LwfGr3debWo_GE@mail.gmail.com> <20110225174623.GP74938@shinkuro.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dnsext] does making names the same NEED protocol changes at all?
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:43:29PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > Requiring slaves to be signers is a major change to the security model.
>
> Depending on how you implement this, it might be.

I don't think any of the proposals actually require online signing, so
Phill is arguing against a straw man.

So far as I can tell the main question is, what is the question and is
BNAME the answer?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth, North Biscay: Southwesterly veering
westerly, 4 or 5 increasing 5 to 7, perhaps gale 8 later. Moderate or rough,
occasionally very rough in Plymouth and Biscay. Occasional rain, fog patches.
Moderate, occasionally very poor.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email