Re: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/04/2019 03:10, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>> For example, if a relying-party has seen the same public key used for
>>>> a relating domain N times or for N years, and sees that public key
>>>> used again, then that relying-party can treat that differently,
>>>> compared to a public key just seen now, without any DNSSEC. ...
> 
>> Again, that makes no difference. If a key has integrity (for a
>> relying-party), it does not matter how new nor old a key that is.
> 
> Um, someone sending mail from your address just said a few minutes ago
> that an older key is more credible.
> 
>> What aspect of key rotation do you think is relevant here?
> 
> Hey, you're the one who said "N years".

Perhaps you are willing to entirely ignore the intent of
what I'm saying and only try score pointless points? It
does seem like that from this side TBH, but nonetheless...

I always said "with integrity." Such integrity can be
built up over years if there is no key rotation. Or it can
be provided via DNSSEC independent of RBDB key rotations,
which has more or less the same effect. That is all very
straightforward. And I believe you do already understand
that, so I remain utterly perplexed as to how you could
possibly remain confused.

At this point, it might be a stylish possibility for you
to say "yeah, I was just testing the limits of your own
understanding of your proposed scheme";-)

Cheers,
S.

> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dbound mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound
>