To:
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
cc:
Jakob Schlyter <jakob@crt.se>, DNSSEC <dnssec@cafax.se>
From:
"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date:
Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:01:57 -0400
Delivery-Date:
Thu Aug 9 18:20:55 2001
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Thu, 09 Aug 2001 11:35:28 EDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108091133510.26942-100000@hlid.dc.ogud.com>
Sender:
owner-dnssec@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Fields in DS record
The way of computing the keytag is different for algoirthm 1... On the other hand, that has theoretically been obsoleted... I'd keep both the keytag and algorithm. Donald From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:35:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ogud@hlid.dc.ogud.com To: Jakob Schlyter <jakob@crt.se> cc: DNSSEC <dnssec@cafax.se> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.32.0108091731530.29410-100000@pooh.schlyter.pp.se> Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108091133510.26942-100000@hlid.dc.ogud.com> >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Jakob Schlyter wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: >> >> > DS record currently has 4 fields, only one of these is absolutly needed, >> > the digest. >> > Which of the others are redundant and should be eliminated ? >> > >> > My personal vote is to delete key tag, and/or size >> >> wouldn't keytag ease key matching (i.e. a hint which one to try to match) >> - at for the human looking at the DS in the zonefile? > >Yes it would a little bit as the key tag on signatures and in DS >should match. > >> >> size could be removed, I agree. >> >Can I get rid of algorithm ? >Just trying to simplify the record. > > Olafur > >