Re: DNSSEC

• To: "Stastny Richard" < >
• From: Jim Reid < >
• Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:57:10 -0700

>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@localhost writes:

    Richard> Having heard both sides of the argument,=20 1.I agree
    Richard> with Axel and RichS, that the ENUM "thing" is already
    Richard> complicated enough.

Possibly. However we should not be excluding things like DNSSEC from
the trials because they are perceived to be "too complex". Especially
if those things are likely to have a prominent role in a production
ENUM service. If ENUM trials were to rule out things based on complexity,
they could start with banning NAPTR records... :-)

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

Seems reasonable.

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

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

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

OK.

• Post To The List:

• References:
  • DNSSEC
    • From: Stastny Richard