> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> It appears to me that requesting an insecure delegation is the right thing >>> to do, as a "technical use". We have, so far, been very careful in what we >>> ask for. If ICANN does not agree, then we can discuss other options. >> >> I agree. > > I'm confused. The .ALT TLD is expected to be used for non-DNS name lookups. > So isn't a secure denial of existence exactly what we want for .ALT? What > is the utility in having an un-signed delegation? >
Sorry, I misinterpreted what I was responding to. I think I agree with Ted that what we want is a signed delegation for secure denial of existence. - Ralph > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
