Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Thu, 23 March 2017 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 0E5B31293F5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 quTYsH7zL88F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16D4F1294AF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-wifi-246.sql1.isc.org ([149.20.50.246]:63938) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1cr6Tn-0003Jv-OE (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:24:56 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20170323042741.79108.qmail@ary.lan> <2C6B4EB6-D0F0-44A8-95E4-68DF32244639@fugue.com> <20170323163205.GD19105@mx4.yitter.info>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <500af1ed-5425-4452-ad8e-c2d511ee738d@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:24:57 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170323163205.GD19105@mx4.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vCf1dQ_7REFujqQM_16zYE_K6vQ>
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 17:25:03 -0000


On 23/03/2017 09:32, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> As a comment on the document, then (that is what we're discussing,
> right?), I'd note that the plan for allocation of a special-use name
> contained in the draft does not state clearly (at least in my reading)
> whether it is conditional on receiving the relevant unsigned
> delegation.  If it _is_ so dependent, then that would be important to
> know.  If it is _not_ so dependent, then probably some additional text
> is needed (maybe in the security considerations) about the likely
> failure of DNSSEC or resolution in such a context.
> 
> I hope that's helpful,

Good point.

I consider them to be _independent_.  The special use reservation
mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation.

Ray