On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:23 PM Willem Toorop <wil...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> Op 18-03-2025 om 08:27 schreef Ondřej Surý: > > > I get your point that this might improve the situation a little bit, but > I don't share the conclusion that this is worth the effort and the > additional complexity. > > I understand that. It may be too complex to do in general, especially as > the child side delegations become less reliable deeper in the tree, but > doing it for example only at the root, as an extension to priming, would > already make a big difference, especially since a root hijack equals a > complete DNS tree hijack. > Folks, I spoke to Ralf Weber in-person a bit about this draft -- and Ralf, who is clearly not a fan of this draft, is nevertheless fine with letting the publication of ns-revalidation proceed in its current form and designation (Standards Track and normative SHOULDs). For implementers who are not persuaded by the benefits of this draft, or are not persuaded that the benefits are worth the additional implementation complexity, I think that is a perfectly fine reason to ignore the SHOULD recommendations. If your fear is that there is only one published document with normative recommendations about referral processing, I encourage you to resurrect the competing fujiwara-dnsop-resolver-update and get that published (which I will also support). I don't think there is any problem having two Standards Track documents advocating different ways of doing referral processing. The DNS ecosystem is diverse and not everyone needs to necessarily do things in the same way. If your customers prefer or demand one specific way, I am confident that they will attempt to vote with their wallets. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
