Re:For DNSSEC
by yuhong on Thursday August 06, 2015 @06:50PM
(#10019947)
And the offline signing option adds complexity to the protocol.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:For DNSSEC
by marcosdumay on Thursday August 06, 2015 @10:28PM
(#10020670)
Ok, my point about people preferring the offline option wasn't criticism.
I'd it being the preferred option is strong evidence that the extra complexity is worth it.
Re:For DNSSEC
by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @08:24PM
(#10020327)
So you are arguing to remove the offline signing capabilities?
Re:For DNSSEC
by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @09:42PM
(#10020521)
That would force companies to either own all of the front-end server farms or store their keys on machines in untrustworthy environments.
Yes: a choice between two very unattractive options. Isn't DNSSEC great?
Re:For DNSSEC
by indolering on Tuesday August 11, 2015 @05:04PM
(#10044381)
Uh? You can run everything in offline mode, unless you really care about trivial zone enumeration.
I am not talking about the current DNSSEC, of course.