Sometimes that rebuttal is summarily dismissed for being old, so here is a modern rebuttal, from a few weeks ago in fact: <https://circleid.com/posts/common-beliefs-about-dnssec-put-t...>
Honestly, I would've expected everything in that table to be an order of magnitude worse for DNSsec. Good to know!
(It's linked from the article you linked, transitively thanks for that link!)
“[…] it's what the security team at one of the few large tech companies that actually have [DNSSEC] enabled told me when I asked why the hell they had it enabled.”
First, you're the one who brought up this stupid article claiming that I'm singlehandedly responsible for the failure of DNSSEC. Not me. Next time, don't cite it!
Second, you have a funny definition of "thoroughly answered". People have written posts disagreeing with it. Their arguments are not persuasive. Clearly, for the last decade or so, my arguments have been carrying the day. You can't just write a rebuttal and declare the debate over!
DNSSEC proponents are weird about this stuff. Someone else took me to task for not point-by-point including their rebuttal article in my original post, like that's a reasonable demand to make.
Really? Then how would you counter them?
> You can't just write a rebuttal and declare the debate over!
True. But if a rebuttal does not recieve any counterarguments, from you or anyone else, then the rebuttal stands.