RE: Pimping DNSSEC (was Re: DNSSEC - Signature Only vs the MX/A issue.)

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

> [mailto:owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of bert hubert

> 
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 08:56:25PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> 
> > Stability is not a necessary condition for deployment. Meeting the 
> > criterial considered essential by the key infrastructure 
> providers is.
> 
> And criterium #1 is stability. I've yet to meet serious 
> infrastructure providers willing to base their network on 
> unstable protocols, where unstable means "I'll have to 
> upgrade software/protocols/algorithms in the foreseeable future".

This is simply not true.

The European registries have made it clear that copmpliance with the EU privacy directive, i.e. compliance with the law is a higher priority.

VeriSign has made it clear that the efficiency of the protocol, in particular the data volumes required is a higher priority.

In any case the way to achieve stability would be to accept maximal requirements rather than minimal. We have had an ostrich posture specification proposed for ten years with no sign of deployment.

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