Re: data request on Sitefinder

["Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb () gettcomm com>]

At 5:09 PM -0400 10/20/03, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:31:45 EDT, "Steven M. Bellovin" 
> <smb () research att com>  said:
> >  A number of people havce responded that they don't want to be forced to
> >  pay for a change that will benefit Verisign.  That's a policy issue I'm
> >  trying to avoid here.  I'm looking for pure technical answers -- how
> >  much lead time do you need to make such changes safely?
>
> OK, since you asked....
>
> At least from where I am, the answer will depend *heavily* on whether Verisign
> deploys something that an end-user program can *reliably* detect if it's been
> fed a wildcard it didn't expect.  Note that making a second lookup for '*.foo'
> and comparing the two answers is specifically *NOT* acceptable due 
> to the added
> lookup latency (and to some extent, the attendant race conditions and failure
> modes as well).
>
> Also note that it has to be done in a manner that can be tested by an
> application - there will be a *REAL* need for things like Sendmail to be
> able to test for wildcards *without the assistance* of a patched local DNS.
>
> And yes, this means the minimum lead time to deploy is 'amount of 
> time to write
> a "Wildcard Reply Bit" I-D, advance through IETF to some reasonable point on
> standards track, and then upgrade DNS, end host resolvers, and applications'.

You make an assumption here -- one with which I agree completely -- 
but that certainly wasn't followed during the Sitefinder debacle. The 
assumption is that the IETF provides a tested mechanism for 
disseminating information and making comments.

Verisign claims that they had tested their ideas with a 
Verisign-selected group of organizations, and made their commercial 
decisions based on the proprietary data it generated from those 
organizations.