Subject: RE: draft-arends-dnsnr-00

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:18:34 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Loomis, Rip wrote:

> Roy--
> But as Ben said previously,
> >>>> I would argue against the use of the term "non-repudiation"
> >>>> in any case
>
> and although the examples he gives are unlikely and perhaps
> do correspond to shooting of appendages, they also (to me)
> show that a DNSNR does not provide non-repudiation for some
> possible (although unlikely) cases.

The service offered with this method is a proof that a record exists, and
in the context of DNSSEC: is signed. The 'action of signing' can not be
repudiated.

> Stating that someone is not complying with the DNSNR proposal does not
> mean that DNSNR provides a clear method, in the case of conflicting
> indicators, to prove in a way which cannot be repudiated that a record
> either was or was not signed.

That is true. Please help in clarifying the text so it complies with the
service offered: authenticated denial.

Or, at least suggest a different name.

Roy

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>