Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 23 March 2017 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A500C1296B8 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rsERButfIBka for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA046128B37 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i34so182304758qtc.0 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=8qu881K51fI3balspvcEYedFDe4780QlJEatlJL2qZQ=; b=qV7dBVzfPxjMFoceE+tFcZcdv/jHvqo1ItZvOPi0IqBZIT6FIE1p2C+E86I8ywOtmb V0czvbeFNU72Ow/dioRQ9Xok6ujhYJlWVoAfT4Hm9JsV/70wYEsL07vAXJYQuLVNMtg+ CTJVtoicOhlhFKo2lCgHabVB7JvyAy5c6jruP7wbsNVTQWRVXMdYayGQx2VP5RC/27Mp B6BHfMgrLC/v4sMVWOslMe3YPqpwMsNEGb6hIjAFYpsY+oIATeDKS0tQVwSMaCPVWDTQ 1v01YLWg8xWmoFO/utBH6rLpzoxDC1dhIXDK61CUpD+M8dojG7ZWuXXbyHedbrf1eYO3 4C9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=8qu881K51fI3balspvcEYedFDe4780QlJEatlJL2qZQ=; b=OvveyJ/xJUDxII6c3tq6S2U39+q/6NND3YXHpvw9s3kAmb6Jy75VWTmQcGwcooxXam Qyrnl4Xid4r8I9xje4A3IgVQZl4nMTsEr6LxeMGVzE0wbum43pRiHoEFaY9jF4sQp0X7 wV6iBmeiajNKBGETjEQKgZH70898JTfFotwtd1cvDsSdKVG2oN8XQed/m1zF0i5Q9tam hNzAsP+oYfGqteXjHWsPGXMefUSHx84OrIWR72hbyBkTHwHkYfvQQzpbz0kCrXKNl/xi q79AekQ0qt41rgtCCNvuml/6CwohwPzs1V39TDwgvm96bV8aCoo5WeC6tohoYraWxTYV NWYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2U5TBbPe+97gAPScYWPuMdFISPqftJUlEbeymnG7Dt+iRHETIeMWl0KINJg6TLyw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a9mr3491838qte.188.1490291391056; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t67sm3688644qkd.41.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_38D7BE03-01EB-4C34-B5F7-B4D98F587D13"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:49:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Ralph Droms <>, IETF dnsop Working Group <>, Ray Bellis <>
To: Suzanne Woolf <>
References: <20170323042741.79108.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] .arpa
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:49:55 -0000

On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Suzanne Woolf <> wrote:
> 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.

I think in the "never available" case we would obsolete the allocation and choose instead.   That would be a bad outcome; if we really think there is no chance of this allocation happening, we shouldn't go down this path.   But I persist in claiming that we need to go down this path one way or the other to get clarity on where we stand with technical uses under the MoU.   We should have done this back in 2000, but better 17 years late than never.

Do please note that what we have proposed does not cause DNSSEC validation to work: rather, absent a pre-configured trust anchor, it causes it to be skipped.