Moin! On 11 May 2015, at 19:20, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> Does this mean: >> >> A: All implementations that conform to this document should prefer the >> NTA over the positive anchor in such a case, or >> B: This is implementation-dependent, but if an implementation allows >> the coexistence of positive and negative anchors, it should prefer >> the NTA, or >> C: something else? > > Good point. I personally favor A, but would be fine with B. > > I'd be interested in input from other implementors; if there's a > constituency for B then fine, but if we're all going to allow > coexistence anyway, we might as well specify it that way. We (Nominum) currently do A and are fine with it. The text Warren just sends out with regards to that looks ok, although I would go with a MAY for the warning. In practice this will not happen that much as most people configure the root as there only trust anchor and do NTAs down the tree. So long -Ralf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
