These are randos. I cited Geoff Huston. You know, the chief scientist at APNIC? And he's a DNSSEC proponent.

I prefer arguing by reason, not making arguments from authority.

Please, make your arguments yourself instead of telling us how your dad is the boss of Xbox or whatever.

No, I'm pretty comfortable with what this particular authority means to this argument.

I.e. precisely nothing? Arguments form from two things, reason and experience, both of which can be respected. Mere authoritarian titles, however, should not. Also, you keep not actually making any actual arguments about DNSSEC.

If you're comfortable concluding your argument by saying Geoff Huston's take means "precisely nothing", I'm comfortable with you concluding there too.

You should not be so comfortable making up opinions and ascribing them to what you consider to be your opponents. I said arguments from mere authority mean nothing. I.e. your arguments, where you refer to other people without making any argument yourself.

I'll also note that you dismissed my references as being by "randos", without any further argument or even reading them.

I've read both of them. You've brought them up before. They are randos.

If you’ve read them before, surely you can bring some counter-arguments which are not a simple ad hominem?

If you insist on dismissing arguments outright from persons whom you do not consider authoritative, consider Geoff Huston, a person you referred to before: <https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2023-02/dnssec.html>.

This is an 8000 word case against DNSSEC. It's what I would have cited to you if you had pressed me on Huston. Did you read it carefully?

I have read it. He presents both the case for and against DNSSEC, and seems to conclude that DNSSEC is necessary for a distributed PKI, and seems to advocate for DANE (which uses DNSSEC) to solve the many problems of the traditional CA system.

Now, have you read my reference, and can you argue against it?

I have read both of them. My rebuttal is: look at who wrote them, and compare that to the author I presented. "To find a detailed argument in favor of DNSSEC in 2024, you need to consult the blog posts of random people". Even if they were good blog posts, that would be damning.

That's as far as I feel like I have to go on this very old, very dead thread.

Submit either of them to HN as a new story, and if they hit the front page, you can be quite sure of getting a take from me on them.

All I can infer from your refusal to rebut any argument, and instead insist that your ad-hominem arguments are acceptable, is that you are in this debate for the fame, not to argue any actual point.