On Apr 23, 2013, at 12:39, Paul Wouters wrote: > I get it, you don't like the concept.
No, that's not true. I see great utility in placing whatever is needed to describe the desired DS set state into a record to avoid having to transfer the data in any other format. I fear that specifying a single in-band signaling mechanism could wind up tying a potentially valuable means of ferrying data to a particular use case, preventing a more general solution from moving into use. If I didn't like concept, I wouldn't have been thinking about it and how close it is to begin useful. What I feel I am reading in this thread is that some folks are already wedded to the current document and are unwilling to alter it for greater applicability. Alarming to me is the thought that changing the basic validation algorithm to require a particular data set be signed with a particular key (role) would be something "simple." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
