Return-Path: 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 CFFB4129AFE for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:15:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca 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 0ZKgaPfp2zfQ for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38633129ADF for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ybWLm4P4Fz2n; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:15:28 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1510625728; bh=TNOSBWu8k1NZR85q1W558QpA4y7vCVKc7CaXgrVlosI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=U7U/MHzFhdzBLiYeRkU0MMuRZ2P+slVlXvNwa9vR0kbeVZG7SFVTRCs0aTh3huLMz r9mBZPTOxANXXuCZILCB8D6+1i9aXsLTz8DnbJOAKP2aR0z7zoO2pSSgcThWj/5YkL oDNo1f98xBaRUlf798DzkrrOygQhfTI0TtYzsTgg= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sA3xfGdvcgEu; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:15:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:15:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [31.133.130.95] (dhcp-825f.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.130.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14BD362D29; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:15:26 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 14BD362D29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Paul Wouters X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A432) In-Reply-To: <3440AE65-DE72-4AAE-8A93-2D698CEF79C4@icann.org> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:15:22 +0800 Cc: Evan Hunt , =?utf-8?Q?Petr_=C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek?= , "dnsop@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <463C4A1E-D189-4A0D-9814-D215F930B0D4@nohats.ca> References: <5C194845-AB79-47DE-B936-97560D071C5D@icann.org> <20171109174804.GA63012@isc.org> <3440AE65-DE72-4AAE-8A93-2D698CEF79C4@icann.org> To: Edward Lewis Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Configured Trust Anchor vs. DS record X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org 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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:15:35 -0000 >=20 > I'm not sure that the need for robustness outweighs the expectation of som= eone explicitly adding a trust anchor anymore. But that=E2=80=99s not your call to make, but the call of the entity decidin= g to put in that hard coded trust anchor. We just ask you not to block us from doing as we have been doing for years. > OTOH, in the sense "I am not sure" there's the example of split-DNS and po= or query path management (i.e., leaks). I'm not sure if robustness helps he= re, or is a bad-behavior enabler. I would like split-DNS to die too but I dont think that=E2=80=99s happening s= oon. Paul