Edward Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
> Ultimately, I'm still uncomfortable with anything that does not use
> the out-of-band mechanism. At the start of this thread was the
> question of "what if the secrecy of the KSK private key is lost? How
> do you go forward?"
So, you have the following radio buttons in front of you now:
- [ ] Write up your solution to the problem (aka, "show me the draft").
I'd really like to see it (truly! I love options! See! Radio buttons!)
- Realize that CDS is likely to go forward because a lot of people like it and:
- [ ] choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your desires
- [ ] offer concrete suggestions to change it so it does fit your
needs (without removing the features that everyone else keeps saying
they want (in-band acceptance))
- Try and stop CDS from going forward by:
- [ ] Objecting up to WG last call
- [ ] Objecting up till IETF last call
- [ ] Objecting and then filling an IESG appeal before publication
- [ ] Objecting and then pushing the appeal as far you can make it go
and stomp your feet really loudly on the ietf@ mailing list.
So, unless you're in the last two camps, I probably don't have much more
to say on the subject because persuading you likely won't happen if
you're anywhere near the last 4. Objecting to the notion without
offering fixes is like saying "I don't want soup to exist because
watching people eat it might make me want it in the future".
I very much understand that you don't want to use the technology. The
solution there is still simple: offer a fix (or replacement suggestion)
to make it what you want, or don't use it!
Which box are you picking?
[please don't be the last one; please don't be the last one]
--
Wes Hardaker
Parsons
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
