Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-threats-03.txt

From: "Peter Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:31:05 -0700

Any signature, from your initial to a VeriSign-branded digital signature 
signals legal
approval. If there is no clear affadavit or representation within the signed 
writing
of what is being approved, one looks to private policy and then public 
policy
statements, for definitions.

In the DNS we have no ultimate root, and no ultimate policy authority. While
US domains are controlled by a quango, and that body could
issue rules defining the meaning of signatures on domain records, the 
meaning
of DNS signatures more generally will need to be defined at an operator
level.

It is arguable whether IETF should be in the business of standardizing
types of approvals, and fields wherein these indications can be
communicated.

First, in the PEM/PKI community, IETF did not
come out with honour, in a similar endeavour: the usage
model of internet PKI  fell to Microsoft to define in the end, to do 
something
technically coherent.  Second, in the 1985-period, UN EDIFACT work 
addressing
similar work on  defining standard represneations and assurances for 
signatures
in messaging systems, legions of lawyers could then not agree that the
definitions had any value, in any of the 137 different legal systems.

We got VeriSign started, to the then IETF's dismay, by avoiding the politics
of these issues. It was a very conscious, architectural decision. Forms for,
and definitions of, useful assurances emerged over time, set by those with
the power and the actual community to define them. There are
ways of positioning and building a business model , while these
events occur. But such work does not fall within the remit of IETF meetings.
Its for the meeting before and after IETF: invitees only.

Peter.

>From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
>To: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>,        Jim Reid 
><[email-masked]>
>CC: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>,        "McCandless, 
>Kevin" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D  ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-threats-03.txt 
>Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:57:32 -0400
>
>At 06:19 PM 7/2/2003 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
>
>>On onsdag, jul 2, 2003, at 16:15 Europe/Stockholm, Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>>>These issues would presumably include things like a BCP or
>>>recommendations on key lengths, SIG expiry times, key rollover
>>>procedures, etc, etc. I think the WG could/should also look at the
>>>issues which will arise when parts of the e164.arpa tree are and
>>>aren't signed.
>
>
>
>Jim could you describe for me then the operational differences/similarities 
>between partial signing of the e164.arpa tree and partial signing  of the 
>.com tree?  I'm sure inquiring minds at Verisign want to know.. :-)   I'm 
>not sure I see the difference at all, frankly.
>
>
>>>  For instance what does it mean if 4.4.e164.arpa is
>>>signed and 3.2.1.4.4.e164.arpa isn't (or vice versa) and what
>>>implications this has for clients that may or may not be DNSSEC-aware?
>>>Are there ENUM-specific considerations here which won't be addressed
>>>by the DNSEXT WG's effort?
>
>well that is IMHO _the_  question.
>
>
>>I must say this, as I have said "NO" to general DNSSEC discussions.
>>
>>The _technical_ part of these questions most certainly fits within this 
>>wg.
>
>
>Within limits ... I would say. ENUM is the DNS so the distinction has to be 
>made between issues that are specific to 2916bis and the general DNS 
>itself. As I read Jim Reid's message I have concerns about what those 
>issues really are. We should not be debating general DNSEXT WG work here , 
>however if we can discover specific problems that they need to address then 
>certainly work on that and provide appropriate guidance to our colleagues .
>
>I don't want DNSSEC issues to turn into the kind of religious discussions 
>we see over NAT's on the general IETF  list.
>
>
>
>>But, co-chair Richard, I think you and I should discuss with our AD's what 
>>they think about the swap from technical to more operational issues 
>>discussed in this wg.
>
>Absolutely ...
>
>
>>_I_ personally think they should be discussed, now that the theoretical 
>>part is done.
>
>The question is what are the appropriate boundaries...
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
>NeuStar Inc.
>46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
>Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
><mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
>  <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>enum mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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