On 31 Jan 2011, at 04:25, Paul Vixie wrote: > the reasoning you're describing is what we had in mind when we built DLV > as an early deployment aid for DNSSEC. we had to "break stiction" where > if there were no validators there would be incentive to sign, and if > there were no signatures there would be no incentive to validate. are > you likewise proposing the hosted solution only as an early deployment > aid?
We primarily offer hosting it is something our community want. You can now see in the adoption numbers that is true. It makes the entry barrier into the system as low as possible, which – apart from being a good thing in itself – aids deployment. > i'm really quite curious as to whether you'll continue operating > an RPKI hosting capability even if it becomes unnec'y (as proved some > day if many operators of all sizes demonstrate capability for up/down). > if so, can you share the reasoning behind that business decision? We're building and maintaining this with membership fees. Why would we keep something operational our members no longer want and need using their money? I sincerely doubt we'll ever get to that point soon, but we'll see. -Alex Band
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
