randy, all, On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:37:01AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
michael, all,
[ if you can't use procmail, could you at least respond to non-ops trolls on the nanog-futures list? ]
indeed. i don't use the former but i should have used the latter. apologies.
but todd, you have a bit of clue. do you have a clue at all regarding the question i asked on-list the other day?
what is the security policy that isc plans to use over the content of the isc dlv registry? and how will the dvl trust key roll-over and revocation be handled?
i don't. i've been reading the spec recently and trying to catch up on the contents of the recent nanog meeting that i was unable to attend. i've been a long-term sceptic of dns-sec due to the lack of any movement on the issuing of a root key (and the multiple, incompatible changes in the protocol itself), but this effort looks interesting.
if the above can not be very clearly answered (by isc?), then this proposal is techno-political hubris at best.
yes, or an interesting proof-of-concept that can be taken-up and completed by someone else. t. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation chief of operations & security todd@renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog/todd.shtml