[CFRG] Re: Request for adoption: Signature modes guidance / draft-harvey-cfrg-mtl-mode-03

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I tend to agree with Watson here.  It's not clear to me why this is a new
signing mode vs. just another data structure that gets signed.  Plenty of
other signed hash-based data structures have been defined by Certificate
Transparency, the various flavors of Key Transparency, and others.  As
Watson says, and as these examples illustrate, the details of these data
structures tend to be pretty application-specific.  So it seems like this
work might be better done in a venue with more DNSSEC expertise, even if it
might be reusable elsewhere.

--Richard

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 12:59 PM Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I don't understand why this is in the CFRG: it seems to be squarely in
> the line of decisions WGs have made outside CFRG such as keytrans or
> CT.
>
> Separately while I think the idea is interesting, there's a lot of
> operational and structural questions to actually apply it very closely
> ingrained with application and protocol level considerations. CFRG
> isn't really suited to determine if this will work. This is not to say
> it shouldn't be pursued, but I just have a lot of questions about how
> it would work fro DNSSEC for instance.
>
> Sincerely,
> Watson Ladd
>
> --
> Astra mortemque praestare gradatim
>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>