Yes? Lots of them? But also: you didn't answer my question.
You got a point: 1k isn't great and of course mainstream cryptographers will advocate for higher. That doesn't change that it's still acceptable within the existing security model nor that better alternatives are available. The cryptographic strength of DNSSEC isn't a limiting factor that fatally dooms the whole project. We have to upgrade the crypto used in large-scale infrastructure all the time!
And yes, uptake of better crypto is poor but I find chicken-and-egg arguments disingenuous when coming from someone who zealously advocates to make it worse. Furthermore, your alternative is no signing of DNS records. Find me a cryptographer who thinks no PKI is a better alternative. I know DJB griped about DNSSEC when proposing DNSCurve, which protects the privacy of the payload but not the intergrity of the payload.
You replied to a two sentence post asking for a name. What do you expect to happen when you do that? If you want to debate the merits, reply anywhere else.
And implying that someone is unqualified is not in fact ad hominem. The desire to interview a disagreeing expert doesn't look fake either.
I dont really think it is. The original person claimed that the reason dnssec was unpopular was due to FUD. I think in that context its a fair question to ask what experts think.
For it to be an ad hominem, the person has to claim that the argument is wrong because of who they are. But that is not the claim here. The claim is that their argument that dnssec hate is unjustified FUD is wrong because experts (who presumably by virtue of being experts) are not susciptible to FUD, also do not think dnssec is a good idea. Thus it is directly attacking the argument and not the person, and hence not an ad hominem.