IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] does making names the same NEED protocol changes at all?

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Fri, 25 February 2011 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875043A69F4 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:45:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ccSb9MQXPLKO for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:45:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBD83A6814 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 396741ECB408 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:46:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:46:23 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110225174623.GP74938@shinkuro.com>
References: <8657EF4A-A08D-46E5-8917-553AE377CAD8@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <AANLkTikHm62x=+xWpSRyERw2cB31yZZhVkTT-90dgFjk@mail.gmail.com> <39EBBA76-22F1-4935-9300-B0078B229793@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <5A100E65-FB09-4556-AA5A-BF9FE0468DDA@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <AANLkTikECGtJm5WyDnX=s8zTERu89qLbFDebf8R1y4Pa@mail.gmail.com> <6AD400292B2C771C7FE70E8F@Ximines.local> <20110225143043.GB74938@shinkuro.com> <AANLkTimfhfsj65Vec61-_Q18+RoC1144Zf1E2bQhvt18@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1102251653290.5244@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <AANLkTinvqqGTGPeMXUcAv5iY1KGn_=LwfGr3debWo_GE@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinvqqGTGPeMXUcAv5iY1KGn_=LwfGr3debWo_GE@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] does making names the same NEED protocol changes at all?
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:45:38 -0000

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:43:29PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Requiring slaves to be signers is a major change to the security model.

Depending on how you implement this, it might be.  But anyway, this is
why we are doing a requirements analysis _before_ we start planning
how to solve these problems, since it isn't obvious at least to me
that what you describe above is a requirement in any case.

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email