[Opendnssec-develop] KSK vs ZSK

Roy Arends 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:

> Hi,
> > 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.


Roy Arends
Sr. Researcher
Nominet UK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opendnssec.org/pipermail/opendnssec-develop/attachments/20090306/49e0ad5c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Opendnssec-develop mailing list