On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Alex Bligh wrote:
>> I meant computational resource requirements resultant from crypto
>> operations, not algorithmic complexity.
>
> I had no problems doing this on a 1.2M domains TLD zone, using off the
> shelf hardware, integrating
--On 23 January 2010 12:25:00 -0500 Olafur Gudmundsson
wrote:
Opt-out was designed for large delegation-only/mostly zones, in almost all
other cases it should not be used.
And this was the only use case I was suggesting was excepted from
the blanket "should not" (in fact I went further an
At 6:07 PM -0800 1/22/10, David Conrad wrote:
>Operationally, people will do what they think is appropriate regardless of
>what is written in an RFC. In some version of an ideal world, folks who care
>about "doing the right thing" could point to an RFC and ask vendors if they
>implement that RF
At 15:54 22/01/2010, Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 22 January 2010 15:45:54 -0500 Edward Lewis wrote:
contents) in example.org. So, whilst opt-out should be avoided
across intervals containing secure delegations, I see no reason
to avoid it across intervals that don't contain secure delegations.
Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 22 January 2010 09:13:22 -0800 Paul Hoffman
wrote:
- Regular rolling can give you a false sense of security about your
rolling process
How can you have any sense of security about your rolling process if you
don't exercise it?
Why do people think the opposite of
