On 23/03/2017 09:32, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> As a comment on the document, then (that is what we're discussing, > right?), I'd note that the plan for allocation of a special-use name > contained in the draft does not state clearly (at least in my reading) > whether it is conditional on receiving the relevant unsigned > delegation. If it _is_ so dependent, then that would be important to > know. If it is _not_ so dependent, then probably some additional text > is needed (maybe in the security considerations) about the likely > failure of DNSSEC or resolution in such a context. > > I hope that's helpful, Good point. I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
