- 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> 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?