Subject: Re: AW: [Enum] Re: Public Keys in ENUM

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:33:46 -0400

At 11:02 AM 6/13/2002 +0200, Stastny Richard wrote:
>Hi folks,
>nice to see, that some work is done overnight (at least from a European 
>point of view) and not everybody is watching soccer only ;-)
>What bothers me a bit is that everytime I ask a question, I do not get an 
>answer, but either 10 more questions are raised or I get the hint, that 
>the issues are treated already somewhere else and I should look there ;-)

Old joke in US.   Harry Truman once commented about economists that could 
apply to us.." All these people do is say 'on the one hand its like this 
and on the other hand its like that' ...will some one please show me a one 
handed economist?"   Are you looking for one handed Internet Engineers? :-)

>I think we have again the two or three camps here:
>
>Camp A is the minimalistic camp, saying that you finally need only one 
>pointer in ENUM DNS to a service resolution services (srs) and this 
>service is doing the rest. Can it be that this is also the sip camp?

I'd certainly say so...

>Camp B in the middle (Patrik) is saying, you do not want to put all eggs 
>in a basket and you should use ENUM DNS to POINT to other services, thats 
>what ENUM and DNS is intented for.

Count me in that camp as well.

>Camp C is saying that I already have a service subscribed (ENUM) and have 
>to pay for it, so I do not want to subscribe another service (e.g. a 
>public key storage services) for things I can do in DNS as well. Jim and 
>David, can it be that this is the DNS service providers camp also?

Not so ..it just that for any number of perfectly good reasons you do not 
want to store application oriented PKI in the DNS directly ... this was the 
subject of much debate in Minneapolis at the BOF there and it has 
re-erupted on the IETF General Discussion list. I clearly count myself as 
one who supports the use of NAPTR records for this kind of thing.  Its 
exactly what NAPTR was designed for.

>Some additional comments:
>
>1. If it can be done technically, it will be done. And having finally a 
>common global repository for a PKI will drive the usage of public keys AND 
>ENUM, to the benefit of both.

Agreed ..but do not store them directly in the DNS ...point to them using 
NAPTR records. This also may permit Authentication and Authorization 
mechanisms to be utilized if necessary.

>2. What about UDP package lenght with storing keys in DNS? This could be a 
>problem. But on the other side, if I look at the current requirements for 
>ENUM done by the national groups, everybody seems to insist on using 
>DNSSEC for ENUM. If  I understood Jims presentation  in Geneva correctly, 
>if you use DNSSEC you increase the data in DNS four times at least, so you 
>blow UDP out of the water anyway. Is this correct?

Yes but again let's not drag ourselves into a side discussion of DNSSEC for 
the moment .. there are serious technical issues there that have not been 
resolved and deployment is not a "done deal" yet.

>best regards
>
>Richard Stastny
>
>PS to Patrik: Danmark vs Sweden in the final, Danmark world champion?
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>enum mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum