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

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

> From: bert hubert [mailto:bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl] 

> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:01:05PM +0000, Alex Bligh wrote:
> 
> > Noone *has* to upgrade anything. If people don't want to upgrade, 
> > that's up to them. And I thought your argument (now) was 
> that it was 
> > not the protocol that was unstable, but various implementations 
> > thereof through the complexity of the protocol - in which case they 
> > will chose the stable implementations instead.
> 
> I was in this case only referring to Phillip Hallam-Baker's 
> statement that stability was not a necessary condition for 
> deployment - which statement in my not so humble opinion 
> shows a large "reality gap".

Don't misreprsent me.

You said that it was the number 1 criteria. I called bullshit on that claim.

I did not say that it was not a criteria I said that it was not the number 1 criteria. I don't think it even comes in the top 5.

And regardless I don't think the group can deliver on it.  Not when people have been ignoring critical functionality.



--
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/>