On May 22, 2014 1:12 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[email protected]> wrote: > > PHB, > >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Stephen Kent<[email protected]> wrote: >> Don't think of CT in this case being something to solve a problem >> faced by DNSSEC users, instead think of it as something that enables >> use for problems where it is otherwise unsuited. > > That's a very confusing last phrase.
I had no problem reading it. Your complaints that we're all inarticulate are getting old. >> The other major advantage is that it provides a tool to avoid some of >> the cryptographic lock in problems that are causing certain countries >> to cause issues in ICANN. You don't have to agree with their analysis >> to find value in addressing the concerns. > > I understand their concerns. But the lack of a well-articulated architecture > for CT, much less a CT for DNSSEC, makes it hard for me to gauge whether > this is a good idea. In other words, your concern is about CT in general, not DNSSEC in particular. Sounds like a separable issue to me. But if CT makes sense then it makes sense for DNSSEC. Nico --
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
