Fair enough, thanks. On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:56 AM Willem Toorop <[email protected]> wrote:
> Op 16-12-2020 om 19:55 schreef Martin Duke via Datatracker: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > It seems to me the mechanisms in Section 5 would be simplified by using > some > > the reserved bit to have an identifier for the secret. > > Thanks Martin for the suggestion, > > We actually considered this idea ourselves in an early stage of the > document, but have rejected it, because it would require the identifier > to be derived from the Server Secret somehow so that all servers in the > anycast set associate the id with the same secret. Also, there is almost > always just 1 Server Secret. Only when a Server Secret is updated (which > should takes a limited amount of time), using an identifier for the > Server Secret would be slightly more efficient. > > Cheers, > -- Willem > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
