[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Cc: Miek Gieben <miekg@nlnetlabs.nl>, Scott Rose <scottr@antd.nist.gov>, dnssec@cafax.se, DNSEXT WG Mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
From: Miek Gieben <miekg@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 15:10:30 +0200
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <v03130303b768c383bb64@[]>; from lewis@tislabs.com on Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:01:10AM -0400
Sender: owner-dnssec@cafax.se
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
User-Agent: Mutt/Linux
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-00.txt

[On 04 Jul, 2001, Edward Lewis wrote in " Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-00.txt "]
> At 8:06 AM -0400 7/4/01, Miek Gieben wrote:
> >which zones are going to use opt-in? .com and .net? Can't we just say
> >that we will never do DNSSEC on .com/.net and friends. If you want to
> >be secure get your secure domainname under .secure?
> .com not use DNSSEC?  Perish the thought!
> I think we can hammer opt-in into the default dnssec mode of operation
> (protocol and procedure) so that .com and other big zones are NOT special
> cases.
That's one step further. I'm not against opt-in, but it would be nice
to have just one standard, either opt-in or plain dnssec. 

grtz Miek

Home | Date list | Subject list