> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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”?
I meant the question to cover both cases. The second question may well be more important in the “never available” case, but that’s part of what I’m trying to understand. thanks, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
