Hacker News Reader

And the offline signing option adds complexity to the protocol.

Ok, my point about people preferring the offline option wasn't criticism.

I'd it being the preferred option is strong evidence that the extra complexity is worth it.

So you are arguing to remove the offline signing capabilities?

Yes.

That would force companies to either own all of the front-end server farms or store their keys on machines in untrustworthy environments.

Yes: a choice between two very unattractive options. Isn't DNSSEC great?

Uh? You can run everything in offline mode, unless you really care about trivial zone enumeration.

I am not talking about the current DNSSEC, of course.

I.E. the way SSL/TLS is run today.