3 ms·
It was reported because it was technically interesting, not because anything actually failed. They anticipated something might happen, monitored for it, found
by teddyh 2y ago
It was reported because it was technically interesting, not because anything actually failed. They anticipated something might happen, monitored for it, found something did indeed happen, and made appropriate adjustments and fixes. Then the plan moved ahead, and the rollover happened without any further issue.
Your parent comment has been downvoted and flagged. Take the L instead of doubling down on your strange obsession on calling everything related to DNSSEC a “failure” and “fiasco”.
- tptacek 2y agoI don't know why you're commenting on the voting here. I don't care and neither should you. I'm saying: the observation I made wasn't "shade". It is in fact a useful thing to know about DNSSEC that the last attempted key rotation was operationally complicated and disrupted to the point where it was delayed for over a year† (relevant, given that rotation of these keys exists as a response to potential compromise in them!), and that the announcement today is not the same thing as the rotation itself. Obviously, I'm not a DNSSEC supporter, but I think what's happening here is that you've read all our previous discussions into a relatively innocuous comment. At any rate: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html † (iirc)
- dc396 2y agoI see, so you're calling prudent caution when doing something that can impact a non-trivial portion of the entire Internet a "fiasco" and saying it isn't "shade". Okey dokey. FWIW, you recall incorrectly. The decision to delay the key roll was made to understand some unexpected data detected when some preliminary actions related to the roll were taken. After analysis, it was determine the signals were the result of some flawed assumptions about resolver behaviors and innocuous. I suppose ICANN could've moved forward blindly, but then I guess you'd criticize them for taking unwarranted risks. [edit: a word]
- tptacek 2y agoI honestly don't care what valence you're assigning to the word "fiasco" --- they planned a rotation and scotched it twice, as I recall, you can use whatever word you like. Here, the point was that wasn't happening. I'm broadly critical of DNSSEC, but haven't criticized anything about today's announcement.