On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:50 AM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:So what you're saying is that you're going to conditionally repeat an operation that has a ritual associated with it (and indeed modify the ritual so this happens) until you get non-matching key tags for the sole purpose of someone later on looking at the key and saying "not a match". A complex ritual with specific requirements and a large cost in human time... OK.So if you're really going down this path, you've probably got a lot more work than just checking against older KSKs.I fully disagree with this, and with Ed's assertions. Checking for a matching key tag in the current and previous KSK set is sufficient to reduce ambiguity for manual use of key tags, which is what Warren's suggestion was about.