Duane,
On 13/01/2020 19.26, Wessels, Duane wrote:
On Jan 8, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Michael StJohns <m...@nthpermutation.com> wrote:
There's also the case that future ZONEMD schemes may need a different format
for the digest field. E.g. one approach to dealing with incremental changes
is to have a NSEC like ZONEMD record which covers hashes only across a range of
names.
We think that the currently documented RR format will solve most use cases -
since the digest field is variable length, it already provides a lot of
flexibility for future uses, by defining additional Digest Types. Anything
which cannot be solved with this format seems like it would be a sufficiently
different protocol that it would deserve a new RRtype and document.
Honestly thinking about it more, I'm not even sure we should consider
supporting an incremental version of zone digests in ZONEMD at all.
There's no harm in introducing a new type with its own syntax and
semantics if we tackle that problem in the future.
Some agility is needed to add new hashing algorithms, but beyond that I
think maybe we should consider ZONEMD perfect in every way and not ever
needing to be revised. 😉
Cheers,
--
Shane
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
