Re: SO vs DNSSEC

[Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>]

At 21:29 +0100 12/6/06, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:

> Anyway, this all boils down to the blunt question: Should we flush all
> DNSSEC-bis work and put our bet on SO?

I don't see SO and DNSSECbis/ter as competing.  They aren't solving 
the same problem.  So I would suggest the answer is no.

I don't see much forward momentum for DNSSEC* regardless of DLV, 
NSEC3, SO, or any other factor recently debated on this list. 
There's nothing standing in the way of progress, progress is just not 
happening.  I have seen equally little forward momentum for SO.  Is 
there code for it yet?

Is there evidence that the SO document's presence has stopped someone 
from deploying DNSSEC*?  I'm presuming not, but I wouldn't know.  Has 
anyone been told to hold back on DNSSECbis because there are ongoing 
discussions over NSEC3, etc.?   Are the distractions really 
distracting or just providing an excuse?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch.

--
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/>