This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[dns-wg] DNSSEC Policy Development Process
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] DNSSEC Policy Development Process
- Next message (by thread): [pim at bit.nl: Re: [dns-wg] DNS hardware]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Diaz
ddiaz at satec.es
Wed Aug 31 09:21:12 CEST 2005
Hi, Afaik, the RIPE NCC has polled the Community´s opinion about securing the reverse delegation tree in different ways and occassions and again afaik, there´s always been consensus on this to go forward. Olaf and other NCC colleagues have been working on this for years now (already when I still was at the NCC). After reading the policy, procedure and documents related, I agree with it and think this is a good staring point. As randy says, I see this more as an operational experience previous to full deployment but imho it´s also the closest the RIPE NCC (or any other RIR) can/could do at the moment. I also agree with Jim in taking .arpa as starting point. Imho, 'e164.arpa." could have been a better way to start and gain operational experience first (just for the size of it and the fact, as Jim points out, that it´s managed by the NCC). Still... I agree with the current RIPE NCC plans and procedures. Looking into the documents and procedures, it could be a good idea to produce a "clueless client" oriented document to make this more available to those willing to sign their zones etc... (my 2 cents). Regards. -- Daniel.Diaz DDL14-RIPE
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] DNSSEC Policy Development Process
- Next message (by thread): [pim at bit.nl: Re: [dns-wg] DNS hardware]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]