Subject: Opt-in wg last call

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>, Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:13:31 -0800

This message starts a two week last call on Opt-In limited to NS
delagtions.  From discussion on the mailing list, we believe that
this compromise position is somewhat more accepted than either of
the 'no opt-in' and 'unlimited opt-in' alternatives.

If you feel that you can not live with this compromise, then and
only then, please explain why to the list.

Thanks,

Randy & Olafur

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Mats Dufberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 01:33:37 +0200 (CEST)

> the 'no opt-in' and 'unlimited opt-in' alternatives.

The only arguments in favor of limited opt-in I have seen have been on
some kind of moral ground. Are there any technical arguments that I cannot
see in favor of limiting opt-in?

When administrating DNS you are focused on the zone as a unit. DNSsec has
also focused on that unit. But queries are not based on zone, and they can
happily skip zones when parent and child resides on the same server, or
some server happens to do resolving. Queries are based on names and its
data, and opt-in refocus on names as being secured or not.

> only then, please explain why to the list.

I think I'll survive any decision taken in this matter. :-) But until I
see good technical grounds for limiting opt-in, I propose full opt-in.

Mats

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mats Dufberg				             Registry TeliaNet
[email-masked]                                  Skanova/AO Networks
+46 8 456 7274                                               Box 10707
+46 70 258 2588                                    SE-121 29 Stockholm
----------------------------------------------------------------------