Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-00.txt> (Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

Paul Vixie <> Thu, 05 September 2019 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB81120900; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBeZgGSGAuig; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FECC1209C1; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B138F892E8; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:07:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <>
Cc:,, IETF Rinse Repeat <>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:07:07 +0000
Message-ID: <2625858.BhlKzlQLXd@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-00.txt> (Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:07:10 -0000

On Thursday, 5 September 2019 20:48:34 UTC Paul Wouters wrote:
> [DLV] was very useful at the beginning, especially before the root was 
> I used it to get DNSSEC from a number of TLDs and could not have done that
> without DLV.

me too. if the first production use of dnssec had been the day .COM was 
signed, then deployment would be even less advanced today than it is.

> It served its purpose well, and it should be formally retired and this
> document should get published.

sam weiler argued unsuccessfully that trust should not be required to follow 
the delegation path, and with a decade or more of perspective i can see that 
he was right. however, DLV as specified and implemented would not be the 
mechanism i'd propose if non-hierarchical trust had to scale. right now 
private distribution of static trust anchors is working as well as it has to.