Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-00.txt

[Samuel Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com>]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Loomis, Rip wrote:

> And as a reminder, we fully expect that some of the requirements
> in this current document may be unrealistic, may conflict with
> other requirements, or may in fact be "desire-ments" without a
> solid basis.  Once there is at least rough consensus on the maximally
> inclusive list, then the WG can work on boiling down to a cohesive
> set of prioritized requirements.

Thank you for putting this together, gentlemen.

Given the potential for conflicting requirements, I'd find it useful
to see what sets of requirements go together.  We might find that
there are multiple disjoint sets of users with confliciting
requirements, but that we can design a solution that works for each
set (or at least some of the sets).  Does your raw source material
give you enough data to start constructing that matrix?

I also remember someone suggesting (during the DNSEXT meeting at IETF
60?) a requirement that zones not be countable, even if the names
themselves are hashed.  Have any of your sources mentioned such a
requirement?

-- Sam

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>