[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-03.txt

To: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-03.txt
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:45:04 -0500
Cc: "Andy W. Barclay" <abarclay@unixpeople.com>, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <a05111b01b9481046233c@[192.149.252.229]>

Maybe this is a stupid question, but in what way does putting application key records into the DNS make it more complicated? Does it *need* to be more complicated, or is this a bug in the specification that could be fixed?

I agree with you that adding *complexity* to DNS is a bad thing. I just don't see how that premise directly supports the argument that there should be no keys in the DNS. That is, adding *complexity* to the DNS is not the same thing as adding *records* to the DNS. There is no reason why records have to be complex.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-03.txt
  - From: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>

References:
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-03.txt
  - From: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>

Prev by Date: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-03.txt
Next by Date: The reverse lookup issue
Previous by thread: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-03.txt
Next by thread: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-03.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread