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

Re: [IPSECKEY] the -01 draft



Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> writes:

> Simon, I see your point in the text that I wrote. Not my intention to
> restrict it. Jakob's text still implies that the signatures must be checked,
> which is not the case if one knows one is pulling it from a local server
> which may have an authoritative on disk source.
>
> How about:
>     The IPSECKEY resource record contains information that MUST be
>     communicated to the end client in an integral fashion - i.e. free
>     from modification. The form of this channel is up to the consumer
>     of the data. It may be end-to-end DNSSEC validation, a TSIG or SIG(0)
>     channel to another secure source, a secure local channel on the
>     host, or some combination of the above.

Sounds good.

There must be a trust relationship between the client and the server,
so the client is able to trust that the data it is using really was
unmodified.  Perhaps this is obvious, though.

Thanks!

-
This is the IPSECKEY@sandelman.ca list.
Email to ipseckey-request@sandelman.ca to be removed.