> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
Clarification: does this mean "without DNSSEC validation initially but DNSSEC validation is needed eventually" or "even if DNSSEC validation is never available"? - Ralph > > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
