> 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

Reply via email to