On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 12:44 -0400, Rose, Scott W. wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2021, at 12:13, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
> > Peter van Dijk writes:
> >
> > > > It remains to be debated whether these ideas that you shouldn't use
> > > > unless you have to should eventually be published as an RFC.
> > >
> > >
On 22 Oct 2021, at 12:13, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Peter van Dijk writes:
It remains to be debated whether these ideas that you shouldn't use
unless you have to should eventually be published as an RFC.
I'm torn on this one. Sometimes going insecure is what has to happen,
and for those cases, op
Peter van Dijk writes:
> > It remains to be debated whether these ideas that you shouldn't use
> > unless you have to should eventually be published as an RFC.
>
> I'm torn on this one. Sometimes going insecure is what has to happen,
> and for those cases, operational guidance is good to have.
On 21/10/2021 18.55, Wes Hardaker wrote:
It adds a new section using multiple authoritative servers with
different data to get around algorithm roll difficulties.
I'm also not convinced that it's a good recommendation, meaning I can't
predict if it will behave relatively reliably. Perhaps if
Hi Wes,
On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 09:55 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> It adds a new section using multiple authoritative servers with
> different data to get around algorithm roll difficulties.
That section only works for some validator implementations. Others will
simpy go bogus, the only question i
