IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] future of dnssec?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 22 February 2017 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 9A8991296B4 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:19:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 mRoSvSrTJi2q for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4391B12967C for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC1DE1D3; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:41:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6130636BB; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:19:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Heatley, Nick" <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21334D566F0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
References: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21334D566F0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:19:08 -0500
Message-ID: <27007.1487787548@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/CQ5E8ZwP2LEGdnG7JS_k5NcbrWk>
Cc: "sunset4@ietf.org" <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 18:19:11 -0000

Heatley, Nick <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk> wrote:
    > Or do end hosts need to perform DNS64 so DNSSEC for A records only
    > can be intact?

This is my take as being the only reasonable solution.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email