Subject: RE: ISSUE 4: Key "lifetimes", was Re: Pending issues for draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements-00

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 14:51:36 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mike StJohns

I agree with Mike.  Key operational periods are more policy issues, not
protocol issues.  There would be no way of expressing this lifetime in the
DNSKEY record.

I don't support this requirement.

Scott

>
>
> Keys don't have lifetimes, signatures do.  Any given key in the DNS
> should last until its superceded or revoked.   Anything else would be
> a base change to the protocol (and orthogonal to the concept of
> key rollover)
>
> Which in turn implies that the rollover document doesn't need
> to/shouldn't deal with this concept.
>
> At 11:39 AM 4/7/2006, Suresh Krishnaswamy wrote:
>
> >ISSUE 4: Requirements draft does not explicitly mention advertising
> >key "lifetimes"
> >
> >STATUS: OPEN
> >
> >REFERENCE:
> >
> >   http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/
> msg00228.html
> >
> >
> >DESCRIPTION:
> >
> >   Keys don't have lifetimes; however, is this concept useful in the
> >   context of trust anchor rollover solutions?
> >
> >--
> >to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
> >the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

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