[Opendnssec-develop] KSK vs ZSK
roy at nominet.org.uk
Fri Mar 6 09:38:50 UTC 2009
Rick van Rein <rick at openfortress.nl> wrote on 03/06/2009 10:15:52 AM:
> > Rick, that does not look less complex to me.
> It isn't. All I propose is to put the knowledge into the XML structure,
> where I think it should go once you accept XML. If we need to interpret
> names like "ANY" we're bypassing XML as a modelling language.
> Orthogonality is a tool to get the structure clearer, not simpler.
> If there are exceptions, I'd rather see them out in the open instead
> of concealing them in a "you know what I mean" term. That is why I
> think that a non-lingual interpretetation of a word like "ANY",
> or "ALL" can cause confision. I'm not surprised that we're now
> these terms -- it is a sign that they are open for interpretation, and
> thus, of misinterpretation.
Rick, this is not really about terminology. We should pick the least
confusing term, whatever that may be.
You're approaching this from a completely different angle. (no value
statement, just an observation).
Yours is: explicitly state what a key can be used for, and can not be used
for. This is needed when there are overlapping realms, like ALL.
Ours is: explicitly state what a key can be used for. The rest defaults to
'ANY' or 'default' or whatever term we coin for it.
Note that this is not about orthogonality, but design principle. Like I
said, the analogy here is the switch/case statement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Opendnssec-develop