[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IPSECKEY] new draft -08
At Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:27:20 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Austein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> Chairs. Reverse is clearly in scope here. Can you discuss with Bert?
> Rob> See "if there is a requirement for reverse records, this issue needs
> Rob> to be explicitly discussed."
> Rob> The issue is not whether or not IPSECKEY belongs in the reverse tree
> Rob> (everyone on this list knows that it does, and Bert now knows too,
> Rob> because I told him). The issue is that the draft doesn't explain
> Rob> this, it just assumes that the reader is already an expert on
> Rob> opportunistic IPSEC and that this is therefore obvious.
> so what question does some text have to answer?
> Is it:
> "where is the IPSECKEY RR found?"
> or: "is the reverse map the place to find IPSECKEY RR?"
> To me, the location of the record has a lot to do with the semantics of
> the record. You need to know what question was being asked of DNS to know
> if the record will be found there.
"What is the usage model for the IPSECKEY RR, and why does this usage
model imply that the reverse tree is where one would normally expect
to find IPSECKEY RRs?"
This is the IPSECKEY@sandelman.ca list.
Email to email@example.com to be removed.