Re: [techsec-wg] TechSec meeting, RIPE 48
[Quoting bill, on Mar 25, 13:33, in "Re: [techsec-wg] Tec ..."]
So, please, anyone with an agenda points, a contribution or anything else to discuss of present: speak up NOW!
I'd like to have a brief, open-ended discussion on DNSSEC validation. I'd be happy to put some talking points together, but have no definitive answers. Only questions. :)
Such a discussion seems very worthwhile, and NLnet Labs can certainly contribute also, but... for what reason do you want to do this in the TechSec working-group, instead of in the DNS working-group? -- yed
[Quoting bill, on Mar 25, 13:33, in "Re: [techsec-wg] Tec ..."]
So, please, anyone with an agenda points, a contribution or anything else to discuss of present: speak up NOW!
I'd like to have a brief, open-ended discussion on DNSSEC validation. I'd be happy to put some talking points together, but have no definitive answers. Only questions. :)
Such a discussion seems very worthwhile, and NLnet Labs can certainly contribute also, but... for what reason do you want to do this in the TechSec working-group, instead of in the DNS working-group?
Well... Some of this has to do w/ my view that the validator function is independent of the resolver and that the application/validator interaction is not well understood from either the app.developer or the validator spec writer. So its not really a DNS issue, to my mind. :)
-- yed
participants (2)
-
bill -
ted＠tednet.nl