Subject: [DNSOP] Re: DNSOPDNSOP4 documents for consideration about the future of LocalRoot behavior.
From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=[email-masked]>
Cc: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>, dnsop WG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 13:41:23 -0800
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>

Ben Schwartz <bemasc=[email-masked]> writes:

> Suggesting that LocalRoot resolvers use HTTP, on the other hand, seems like a dangerous
> shortcut.

We could remove the suggestion, but please do note that the documents
really say implementations should use what is best for them.  It
suggests that HTTP has some advantages, and you're right we should
probably add some text describing why DNS does too.  IMHO, we should be
providing options not mandates for what to use.

> (IXFR seems well-suited to LocalRoot, but we could pretty easily layer
> on ZSTD or something if needed.)

IXFR actually isn't useful for signed zones, as the IXFR content ends up
being about the same size after every zone signing.  But do note that
it's an option for URLs in the option list too.

> The proposed "root zone publication points" system effectively
> introduces a hard dependency on HTTP, to accomplish the equivalent of
> what DNS Priming does in-band.

No, it says that both AXFR and HTTP records should be available for use.
That's an option not a dependency.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Google