Hi Ray, > On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation > mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation.
I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation accomplishes in the absence of the insecure delegation. If I read your comment correctly, I can infer two things about the protocol, whether the insecure delegation is delayed or refused, at least in the short term: 1. The protocol is sufficiently functional for deployment without working capability for DNSSEC validation. 2. Having a single-label name is more important for the functioning of the protocol than having DNSSEC validation work. Is this a fair assessment of the WG’s view? thanks, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
