[dnssec-deployment] Computer Wire story on DNSSEC Deployment

[Paul Vixie]

> I personally disagree that bad press is better than no press, and I
> disagree that the worst that can happen is that people ask clarifying
> questions.  The worst that can happen is that people accept
> misinterpretation or mischaracterized coverage as truth, and take
> positions based on misinformation.

folks who think they need dnssec will read more than one article before
they take a position.  folks who are looking for reasons not to adopt
it will not.  while i overstated my case -- there is such a thing as
press that's bad -- the article steve sent wasn't an example of such.

> Because of perceptions in some parts of the international community
> the US owns or acts like it owns the Internet, issues of Internet
> governance, and already propagated misperceptions among some people
> that DHS is some black agency rather than a protective one, this is a
> problem we certainly don't want to have.

with due respect, i think that DHS has a lot of work to do over and
above its position on DNSSEC in order to correct that misperception.

> While I do agree that the story could have been quite a bit worse,
> that simply highlights the fact that we want to avoid stories that
> stray too far from the real message.

yes, of course, but all we can do is talk to reporters and hope they get
it right.  steve is particularly good at helping reporters get it right,
and this article didn't turn out wrong because steve didn't stick to the
script.  sometimes you try really hard and the reporter gets it all wrong.
it's very rare that this causes more harm than good in the long run --
and i think that this article, though wrong, isn't going to be harmful.
in fact it will stimulate discussion and get people to ask steve whether
he's crazy or just stupid, giving him a few more opportunities to tell
the story.

> Sufficiently inaccurate coverage that gets propagated and creates a
> stir could potentially create significant obstacles to moving forward
> with following the DNSSEC deployment roadmap.

i strongly disagree.  a stir right now is the only thing that will save
dnssec from oblivion.

> In my opinion, we need to develop a set of talking points for
> DHS-funded DNSSEC deployment participants who are speaking publicly
> about the DHS-funded DNSSEC activity, which includes all the things we
> want to be sure are said (that the private sector and not the
> government is leading the roadmap development, that this is being done
> with immense vetting and collaboration with the international
> community, that the DNSSEC standard itself is the result of
> international consensus-based standards development, etc.).

i think that's been done.  maybe steve can share his script with us for
verification, but i've heard the spiel a couple of times and it's nothing
like what the article said.  for myself, i'm happy to look at talking
points and try to stick to the agreed-upon script also.  but i really
want to characterize today's articles (both of them) as "good press"
simply because of the discussion it will stimulate.