From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.selwastor.com (mail.selwastor.com [192.241.231.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A8C321F1F7 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:57:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-76-103-145-58.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.103.145.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.selwastor.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CA4F4068F; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:57:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Ranganathan Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:57:07 -0800 To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] DNSSEC X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:57:37 -0000 I am looking into ways to improve DNS on the openwireless router = software.=20 When I mentioned DNSSEC as one of the items to review, I received this=20= response from one of the developers.=20 http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/ CeroWRT put in work to include DNSSEC so there must be folks on the = CeroWRT list who don't see it that way. I would appreciate any pointers to = discussions refuting=20 the points made in the blog post above. If the points made in the blog = post stand=20 there would not be any reason to include DNSSEC in the openwireless = router. So,=20 I am looking for counterpoints that might establish that DNSSEC could = have value.=20 Thanks, Ranga=