Hi, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 08:34:14AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > The working group is aware of the "wait many years" part of this approach, > and is willing to try and see. If the working group sees no progress over > the course of the next few years, we may shift to the latter approach. >
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, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
