Doug Barton wrote:
bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 05:26:12PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
I appreciate that some people will feel that legal agreements are an unavoidable consequence of signing. However that's a matter between the each TLD (and its government?) and those co-ordinating the root. There are no technical grounds for parent and child zones to have a legal agreement underpinning their use of DNSSEC. So if a TLD wants to have a signed delegation, they can do that with or without an agreement or anything that could be viewed as an acceptance of the way the root is managed today. If a TLD doesn't want to have a signed delegation, then they don't have to. Nobody's being compelled to do anything they don't want.
well... as Lutz has demostrated, its often difficult to have a signed delegation and also be able to restrict whom picks up your DNSKEY and plops it into their version of the parent delegation.
DNSKEY is just a Resource Record, just like NS. The same arguments apply to both, with equal meaning technically. People are applying meaning to DNSSEC-related stuff that it does not actully have. For some reason you are adding fuel to that fire.
Doug, please, change you mind - it is not just a Record. You will begin to use all the stuff that have different background in real - non network life with all problems that it will arise. Dima
Doug