On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Antoin Verschuren <antoin.verschu...@sidn.nl> wrote:
> I've given Ed's words a really good thought, and slept a night over it. > I think the reason why some of us don't feel comfortable with many of > the assumptions in our requirements is because we try to avoid a > framework we as technicians are not comfortable with, and that is trust. > Trust is more a layer's thing. As sysadmins we expect trust is > evident, and we all try to do "the good thing" so why would anyone > doubt us at some point. We don't realize trust is something that needs > to be gained by convincing somebody else to express it, it cannot be > self-proclaimed. Quite right. But there is a second reason: the proposals are trying to use the DNS protocol to transmit the data and, seeing the limitations of doing so, adjust their requirements. A different way to design the protocol would be to list the real requirements and stick to them. This would very likely involve using a different communications protocol, such as RESTful-HTTP-over-TLS. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
