<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

DNSSEC

  • From: "Stastny Richard" < >
  • Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:43:34 +0200

Having heard both sides of the argument, 

1.I agree with Axel and RichS,
that the ENUM "thing" is already complicated enough.

2. But I also agree with Jim, that the ENUM trials are the
perfect chance to try out DNSSEC in an greenfield application
without real customers.

I would therefore like to propose the following:

As far as the minimum requirements are concerned, we could agree on the
proposal from Axel and add it to 7.:
"Securing ENUM DNS zones should be investigated during the trials?".
eventually replacing the should with shall.

To achieve this, a workplan may be established within the document,
defining which issues are tackled in which order and priority.

Anyway, for further discussion on this issue, it would be nice to
have text for a section on DNSSEC requirements in 11. DNS requirements.

Jim, could you please forward a proposal for this text to be added to
the document for discussion?

Best regards
Richard Stastny





  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>