On May 14, 2015, at 2:52 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > It would be super-annoying for delegations to nameservers that do not > exist to occur for these, because not only will there be trillions of > them but I get to wait for them to time out, so delegation to cpe for > example seems like a non-starter.
It would help if you would consider the existing body of work that's been discussed on this very topic before drawing unwarranted conclusions. I alluded to it in an earlier message when I said that the delegation should be automatically negotiated. There's work on this going on in homenet, and I also wrote a draft for the dhc working group before I became an AD and all work stopped. I'm sure you can still find it in the archive. I suspect that particular proposal has become moot as a result of work that occurred in the intervening years, but it could be revived if necessary. That was a long way of saying that I agree with you that delegations shouldn't dangle, but disagree with you that this means delegations are a bad idea. Dangling delegations are a bad idea! :) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
