Subject: comment from "Tradeoffs" applied to "Delegation Signer"

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:13:33 -0700

These two documents are independent, but I'd like to use words from one to
comment on the other.

In Olafur's Delegation Signer:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-delegation-signer-00.txt

>1.1 - Delegation Signer Record model
>...
>  The main disadvantage of this approach is to double the number of
>  signatures that need to be verified for the each KEY set. The
>  advantage on the other hand is that child only needs to update data in
>  parent when it changes DNS signing key.

And from Rob's Tradeoffs:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-00.txt

>Potential problems with A6
>
>   ..., but in general, we expect the DNS data to be read
>  more frequently than it is written, so we need to evaluate this
>  particular tradeoff very carefully.

My main concern regarding the delegation signer is that it is "optimizing
for write" in a system when where reading is much more common.

BTW, I like the Tradeoffs draft - good synopsis of that debate to date.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: [email-masked]

You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.