3 ms·
> It is a selling point in that it simplifies the protocol, making it easier to implement. In the current protocol the only difference between offline and onli
by mned 11y ago
> It is a selling point in that it simplifies the protocol, making it easier to implement.
In the current protocol the only difference between offline and online signing is in how authoritative servers are implemented. There the differences aren't all that significant (relative to building an authoritative server as a whole) -- the same data needs signing, etc -- so please explain how your protocol makes implementation simpler.
> Obviously it would not be the only difference.
Can you please expand on that? You've said you've been thinking of a DNSSEC2 proposal for a while so you must have more to say.
- yuhong 11y agoI forgot to mention that one of the known problems of DNSSEC is the DNS zone information disclosure problem. Online signing would allow the problem to be eliminated and reduce complexity by the protocol no longer having to be designed for enumerating DNS records. Of course, DNSSEC2 would probably only allow ECC signing too (I suggest both NIST curves and Curve25519 as options).
- mned 11y agoOnline signing and white lies are already in DNSSEC. What you've described so far doesn't seem to be different to the status quo. Even deprecation of older cryptographic signatures is being worked through at the moment.
- yuhong 11y agoI know about this. That is why I mentioned the complexity that comes from the original protocol design being designed for offline signing.
- mned 11y agoYou have said you have been thinking of a DNSSEC2 proposal for a while, that your protocol differs in multiple ways and that it is easier to implement. Given this you should be able to concretely articulate how your protocol differs and where its advantages are gained. Thus far you have not shown the ability to do this.
- yuhong 11y agoIt is just a bunch of ideas at this point and not even a complete list of them.