> On Jan 19 2015, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> [...]
>> One should also note, that it is possible for a validator to choose not to
>> trust an answer if it believes that some keys in the chain are too weak.
>> Not very useful while the root is still 1024-bit RSA, but might be if that
>> changes.
>
> But what would you expect "not trust an answer" to result in for the
> end user? "Unvalidated" (as for an unrecognised signing algorithm),
> or "bogus"?
I believe "Insecure" is the correct term. For me, as a validator, it is not
secure. For some unknown reason. A more elaborate API may of course return more
information.
jakob
