At Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:31:18 -0700, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote:
> > - Section 2 > > > > Therefore, it is important that resolvers be able to cope with > > change, even without relying upon configuration updates to be > > applied > > by their operator. > > > > If we really want to make it work "even without relying upon > > configuration updates", we may need to consider some extreme cases [...] > This seems like a far-fetched example that would require a new fallback > mechanism. There are many, many reasons why the root server operators > would prevent *all* the addresses from changing during the TTL. I'm okay with dismissing the issue. > > - Section 3.3 (DNSSEC with Priming Queries) > > > > I remember I commented on this section before and we had discussions > > about how to address it. I don't remember the conclusion at that > > time, but is this a result of that discussion? I'm asking this > > because the current text still seems to have some explanation gap to > > me. > > The conclusion was the current text. In essence, it says "turn on DO if > you want; although it is useless now, it might be useful in the future". Okay, then that's fine for me. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
