Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-dnsop-nsec3-guidance

[Vladimír Čunát <[e-mail]>]

On 11/05/2021 18.17, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> I'd also expect something on limits accepted by secondaries.  And some
>> details are probably up to further discussion (e.g. particular numbers
>> and SERVFAIL), but I don't think such details would block adoption.
> That's certainly an interesting thing to think about, but it starts to
> get in between the relationship of primaries and secondaries.  Is that
> something that should be "standardized"?

I'm not really a good person to ask about these relationships. Anyway, 
if some values were to get standardized to cause SERVFAIL in validators, 
I would expect also secondaries to refuse them, though perhaps that's 
more of an advice or setting expectations (contrary to the validator 
part which I consider an incompatible change in protocol).  Naturally, 
signers should be at least as strict, too, e.g. refuse to go in the 
range that gets standardized to cause a downgrade.