Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87547129B70 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VYpbTeLRsskf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265AD1315E7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id p64so186797847qke.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=oW2DYI3KDsQvlYlXkl0ZVGFV56u/hY2UJ5Nm7UvjZfo=; b=TzQOs5DHnE0irSSDHZeB+y6X1I8HL7RRHRt64Oyr2ni6VqxWov2mun1Jkz+b+KXwKC jag2ePNdy/NQpgAqIpOkhBd8ILOgrRMIVritnNz9+xVKEPZ+mkxmuZN/Qv6pjgrIOJdo BhJmrE1WwP4cOQRZlAE5LkS4z5ZM33HWgdUvpFWo/0x3G0cLtQ/pT4+SDTWTpiBLL5ZP LGsE9VkeZbx9g+ts+JVZnn6PHvNiCig8wUGVh2Z+UXJIE/9xUoQsXIEy65y8QryQT8Gg TI9i0dDA/j/hSouDG1EICokhy6EymxOFWpcB2PoMWMvDnicyCm/sKpic2tUwX/NYlYQW bb3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=oW2DYI3KDsQvlYlXkl0ZVGFV56u/hY2UJ5Nm7UvjZfo=; b=cFXNzTnmPyVWQqLIuKCzXnPkPIrkjPX/PGLXjEzfwWCcmjwLS7R6T6EEQQMDHZEvzC rDdb4JO9P8dtPwcOYwWX+fq4vLeUvHMJYUqH4an8V5RFcKqh+7FxO55NIq0M3XA2A1j7 wsNnDaE/dF/RNndwxP0Hclp7oOX3ZznxdglAsDWyqQdKWawJoeo8jmDs8xNKYpmoaGhi puziYBiR3UjsD6MCiyh6ADKP++WW54YxXTJHAOZaq1nntiVDoW4r1VF0Mu1MzBUrhUXW 3HIIa8jpgmN2Ycz/5U77BtBI5VdcMmDhzGh4yWiQjWtmw1On6UkxOIgoqMujaPFgq0VR 7N9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H17eorSK+2NjtjuQz6fAXCPmjPslqJnKL12J+wcCoIoy1/n547PpNodl6qakKL54w==
X-Received: by 10.55.47.4 with SMTP id v4mr3409905qkh.77.1490290989250; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c381:c20:490d:c1d8:ce40:2971? ([2601:181:c381:c20:490d:c1d8:ce40:2971]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v63sm3706533qkc.5.2017.03.23.10.43.07 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <97BAB933-994F-4A3D-823F-163D09618CE9@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:43:06 -0400
Cc: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>, IETF dnsop Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF5653A4-774C-4A26-B049-FEFA2D591087@gmail.com>
References: <20170323042741.79108.qmail@ary.lan> <2C6B4EB6-D0F0-44A8-95E4-68DF32244639@fugue.com> <20170323163205.GD19105@mx4.yitter.info> <500af1ed-5425-4452-ad8e-c2d511ee738d@bellis.me.uk> <850A8729-8762-4375-90EF-50CDF4AC232E@gmail.com> <97BAB933-994F-4A3D-823F-163D09618CE9@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EGc2RYh2PF8J5lrJOcpdToZ5t68>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] .arpa
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:43:18 -0000

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ray,
>> 
>>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis <ray@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