To:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Cc:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
David Terrell <dbt@meat.net>
Date:
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:00:44 -0700
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<E15NrNx-00081V-00@psg.com>; from djb@cr.yp.to on Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:41:13AM -0700
Reply-To:
David Terrell <dbt@meat.net>
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.4i
Subject:
Re: NGtrans - DNSext joint meeting, call for participation
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:41:13AM -0700, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > Of course, the other serious problem with your argument is that your > one-month assumption is wrong. It is _not_ acceptable for information to > persist for a month. I addressed this in my previous message, and in my > ``Extremely long TTLs'' message six months ago. I'm not sure why you've > waited six months to state your disagreement. Did I miss somewhere where the expiration of the cryptographic signature was defined to replace the normal DNS TTL on the record? -- David Terrell | "My question is, if a mime types, isn't dbt@meat.net | that kinda cheating?" http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | - Jason Zych