Re: Authenticated denial of existence...

On 11/25/2013 04:59 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Jelte Jansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> now that you quote it like that, I think that using 'allowed' in that
>> first line is misleading; it's not so much that the protocol doesn't
>> allow on-line signing, the requirement was that it didn't have to rely
>> on it. Also, IIRC the preferred term was on-the-fly rather than on-line.
> 
> Good points. What's the best opposite for on-the-fly? Pre-signed?
> 
> Tony.
> 

I don't want to be nitpicking on words, but RFC 4470 has "on-line
signing" in its title. And then off-line seems to me the obvious opposite.

I do prefer "requirement of not relying on it" better than "allowed"

Best regards,
  Matthijs

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext