IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] future of dnssec?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A13129A6F for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:08:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 eWy2dtDSNfBc for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:08:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED4731299D6 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n21so7940457qta.1 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:08:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=LJW7taayHN2z9w5MoSPthRrSnsyZuqmVC56SECSfr8A=; b=hbNLoMsBudaxxl2Lupxtcen4SCIT8QMSjGdYvxsL/CMAseSkPNirivW7qP/TxUDEvn WUupfrwrOXNAmGUNq9gVur1VtFweBIafw5i8bOQAGLGZhP9Fsky9HCf3lQI5i0QNBul/ jGhq0B7vT3x2XKE66IVweB010cNRaq1zTfkQEUXVCUgyVgcNJHf99m5pFfOUbuYH6wIm C4vfh3667j4T8dLdtiXs8RSWIC6+pkCgdqBcM5oHaHv6vbHmf0z5rBu0gEzMPhfHMk9M 5xK/9/gMLoBPV9TAxxC/WXs2eoa69HLzD0vXLLzp86qt9sfllUkHJ9ILiDtDlQZnQ4tc N0nA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=LJW7taayHN2z9w5MoSPthRrSnsyZuqmVC56SECSfr8A=; b=JzvD2eGuqp7kXjzABktsegX4ED99jTNG4OdEs7uQq9U5oNaNAdyLw6oyRZ4svlkzo7 Jz8wafFH71iGqt0dpCd96RfaCjeHDrqZZbVoqJrH816bA54Weoaup+9EYwWGFmWs+Vms GKwBsKnNbZyfBgqPgdgG50fMlGUS3jOCFsQvLHTf1L4uEBxbP1BwhuVxLWmNtqzcf/El cGhLiCogVTe7VDv30XbugLQ+jMLcgZQ28ymrBDSHS0Oce7jI0KdL5JiGnEmKpSOm61sl cC7dXXzccEe6EHpKTRcNv6TRjK1OsunwDAhS98mqPGAhOuhSwoZprLGnNYTYW4D5mxFp gVMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mqB87XLnlmtpqo+GX+HUwlyob6Nz3Zw1KYpLaIxVpiwIFQke/Qj20vNClodml3Hg==
X-Received: by 10.200.35.124 with SMTP id b57mr33373197qtb.147.1487783290749; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:08:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i125sm1017987qkf.52.2017.02.22.09.08.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:08:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <B9DA4003-6691-4498-A393-EE5AF695B16F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9C9FCC8F-20C3-46AC-955E-0B0CFEA95FCD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:08:07 -0500
In-Reply-To: <m1cga39-0000DKC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-sunset4@u-1.phicoh.com>
References: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21334D566F0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <B5E8C545-55B9-4ECB-B0C8-C3EEFEECD320@fugue.com> <20170222143629.9E9C56454B08@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAD6AjGS9gF3AX_EXo8fbii-TYFhHa6CdUkxEQXjvOdQsXSxhrw@mail.gmail.com> <m1cga39-0000DKC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/CFo4j8Jx2S8UYoh_hrGKA5juI7o>
Cc: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, sunset4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sunset4] future of dnssec?
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sunset4/>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:08:13 -0000

On Feb 22, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-sunset4@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> However, NAT64 is such a 'success' that at least one high profile content
> provider had to rush to roll out IPv6 because the deployed NAT64 was
> breaking their service.

And that, right there, completely justifies all the work that went into the NAT64 process.   :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email