Stephane, At 2016-05-05 17:47:48 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:57:26AM -0400, > Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote > a message of 49 lines which said: > > > With respect to the DO bit, there was a suggestion: > > Resolvers SHOULD send DO, and should try validate (if it gets signed > > responses). > > There have been no discussion on the priming draft since. IMHO, the > current text is fine (the resolver MAY set the DO bit, it is currently > useless with the ICANN root but it may be useful in the future, or > with another root). The text now says exactly that, which I agree seems completely clear and correct. Plus we can always roll another RFC should root-servers.net become signed (or should some alternate root server naming scheme be adopted). Maybe it will even take less than 10 years next time? ;) > I think this draft is important, well written and I would be sad if it > were lost in oblivion. Time to resurrect the discussion? Makes sense to me, I agree. Cheers, -- Shane
pgpgs7cw4ACNK.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
