Caution - Basic engineering rationale philosophy argument herein. (I.e., barely worth the stamp I put on the letter.)
On 11/27/14, 20:04, "George Michaelson" <g...@apnic.net> wrote: >I'd struggle to say that was a bad idea. It isn’t just “good” or “bad” idea that needs judging, but, is it worth doing? For what you get, there are alternate means. And given that tool implementers (referring to Mark’s comment about BIND) are adding protections beyond this this may be a better idea in theory than in practice. (Operative word - “may be”. Okay, operative two words.) >The history only informs the present, it doesn't have to determine it. >The statement about 'learning from history, doomed to repeat it' is not >meant to say you cannot re-try things previously considered and rejected. >It means you need to be aware of them. Cautionary tale – my initial message on this was just a data point, not a forensic examination. All it I said “we tried it, we didn’t like it” mostly to prompt anyone else with a memory to see if they could recall why. On face, trying it and not liking it isn’t killer, just experience.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
