FWIW, I agree with Ed's points below (some of which I have expressed
previously).
Doug
On 04/23/2013 11:37 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
