> On 10/27/23 11:51, Johan Stenstam wrote: >>> Extra vantage points are a mitigation for the (prevalent) lack of >>> signatures during bootstrapping; once authentication is handled, there's no >>> need for it. >> I get that. But, as you know from both the draft and the presentation I made >> at OARC some weeks ago, this is really not about how to make scanners >> slightly less inefficient. > > Ack > >> But I have to ask: is your point just that I should get my math right or is >> your point that scanners are fine, every parent should run one and there is >> no problem to solve? > > Purely the former! > > Scanners are, of course, inefficient, and notifications are a way to improve > that. I just think that as we are making comparisons, with arguments whose > strength is (in part) based on the number of queries needed, we should get > the order of magnitude right, to make the comparisons as helpful as possible. > That's all! :)
Then, as usual, we’re in agreement. But to me, the place for analysis of scanner efficiency (or lack thereof) is in conjunction with the draft on generalised notifications and not here, as this draft explicitly is intended for the use cases where there is no scanner. :-) Regards, Johan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
