IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 17:34 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 91A261279E5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 zOavD0q-xkYG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (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 CE66E127775 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x35so181429237qtc.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:34:11 -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=MK1PXVTsUy8oJ7QyonquvGPvHlUcx0PCqgwVVmtwZ58=; b=PhVFf2DKw6VEFLvMiG9F3gWpi0BknN3fawvHCE66z7PDTuCzRRk4zXQ2GU8nF5uphF YNRZbCqVcx174hJdTIb1X+GOl4Ey1ZVExsFpt0VO4x0WHyeTK6bYHd0Qx4osulohkNgT xmYDkqhRiCuKApxbBdgOMfclbSIx6hlws0eCDOkh9Nr0z7pAEu71bcddykUNE3jxWwog HY2BpwuQzxWjZKA9OqMRH5X+b3kI5cCz0Oi4rEimRqiVCr3knAUBmGEWoBnUJYmz4bv9 pgOqq8PGo5tikhBxhcnCD6wPvRQHO0uUQJuPA0Yp95UcPznpruNOkXLvg2E6LjLrWhXw O6wA==
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=MK1PXVTsUy8oJ7QyonquvGPvHlUcx0PCqgwVVmtwZ58=; b=HFWhfiSd4Eyo812OEGqkL5CkiIgbRLj24N3yS3kt5pFuBS4xG96B/nMfHOPInBxJzi +nCEgin3Xas1zDWtZvYjLeW+HLGRyAvEErwRc5ZpBllVSR9IHz/no5FbgfXS33Xx300Y xIH/rq370eYNDhf2ym3ZsDvZ6nXpxIQXXyoGL91pNnmOQtQ2gb5HXlZxlu/ytWVSkUFs a4Hc9I2ZvSlf0ZKGDUFoxWJ0fBwYJxKR4vUl7QDPJZG2GtNK5VcAEMgEd6wnBy5SB1F4 n/rUZZJwwHFjDQR6EoX9Arv5uZiYbV+Ipa8DUxK3IisJiHdTS6udXUb92P4BwQZedFXa Z7Cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2uf7qa2TJ3raYOdYX5SoVBB5eXzWBUk2lvcP2hGSesUMTe5/ldUasE6cimYnbhlQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.50.20 with SMTP id x20mr3457269qta.169.1490290450872; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:34:10 -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 q67sm3674252qkl.19.2017.03.23.10.34.09 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:34:09 -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: <500af1ed-5425-4452-ad8e-c2d511ee738d@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:34:08 -0400
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <850A8729-8762-4375-90EF-50CDF4AC232E@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>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VNQD7NjxLqMfui1lQXhDdQWD0dA>
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 17:34:14 -0000

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.

2. Having a single-label name is more important for the functioning of the protocol than having DNSSEC validation work.
 
Is this a fair assessment of the WG’s view?


thanks,
Suzanne

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email