On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:50:43PM -0500, James Cloos wrote:
> Since I've posted wrt this draft, I feel compelled to add that I
> encouraged symmetry, iff names are used, because I do not expect
> that anyone will remember them otherwise.
What do you mean by symmetry? If you mean that the names for 0/1
should each differ in the same way from 2/3 respectively, then this
requires names that fail to distinguish between a vanilla CA (in
usage 0) and a trust-anchor (in usage 2). Is such "symmetry" more
important than semantic fidelity?
[ Usages 0/1 are a blunder, we're continuing to pay the cost of
this blunder. ]
> There is no value in names if one has to look them up; in that
> case numbers are at least as useful.
Are the names in your view primary intended as alternative input
forms, or (perhaps as comments) in display forms of RRs?
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
