Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@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 4BDAB129A5A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:40:41 -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 IDqDggqP1jZd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 67F0F1294BB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id n21so181956260qta.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:40:38 -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=WhRRbZ0rQOR1JlmetKiSn74PK/+lMYeKjXWsSKuMvYg=; b=VS++QqMrYpqJrrVkOc6MshNn65CwD7zdemXd7mfMpqPGxhnsi85gDtezAUlhVqIpjl U6vjQu9o3bfdbERrdPpMYxeWLXdcm6AlbBlp3DHP3awRH5AiWzc52/xlPgjjBitQei1O cnJQMm3kNfmBntr8Y0pqBeAhBG3HN1oBHbIuJDZ/sDLNI9WEZIoPOeEvjiBwh46mHvo2 u5Zo8z1VDhZPd28KZ7c06lHpawGYehLO1Tgxg4HyueBdpYuyE455LDyOZvsnQS74a6hk pAzl1BNLVg3Ka++uYmpjsXr7Hx71ypMkQxnwtOWdx2hEewCJIr0A20+sCS/7AmN6tGOV 8aDA==
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=WhRRbZ0rQOR1JlmetKiSn74PK/+lMYeKjXWsSKuMvYg=; b=LsS8fv8DwlEYXjtDulI526NbmHmMKwCNrvzVVyTbniyX9umR7ExP1uij3h0AY+JZRv xNvMPTfHPwl3jAYKVcbCFib6Yo4xtzRDbGCQkZCl8b4c9HSzXnrb6OSTaili+K54Aewn /OPngOhn6GccibE229Rtd30VDAhmslwzbkI32kVFACOi4j8hizQmUtg9XxCWCQYbVR45 PtoH6XtHyUr0R/hOl6GI2Qi3iL1R7zWB7BSOxHNbqVvjdJ8zbGzGPLBqijoR77fTBYHb r8XGaubUo9xeuZex3yJ3ldmNRmSJ/55lVvXNhQ/fmuxxZ/fMR6yRYJMoymx6OUdAiFy0 /yLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1ee98dzd8RX6UPy0WmW12/BXn3VYbB7Mwne+HinUaLnLVxRcGcaH7QYwC4ZWxUtw==
X-Received: by 10.200.44.249 with SMTP id 54mr3449226qtx.250.1490290837489; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:65d4:518c:a8e7:5d72? ([2601:18f:801:600:65d4:518c:a8e7:5d72]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w123sm3675700qka.24.2017.03.23.10.40.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <850A8729-8762-4375-90EF-50CDF4AC232E@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:40:29 -0400
Cc: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>, IETF dnsop Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <97BAB933-994F-4A3D-823F-163D09618CE9@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> <850A8729-8762-4375-90EF-50CDF4AC232E@gmail.com>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zFpOAE2AeruwcSh8kSlpZdrg_as>
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 17:40:41 -0000

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Clarification: does this mean "without DNSSEC validation initially but DNSSEC validation is needed eventually" or  "even if DNSSEC validation is never available"?

- Ralph

> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop