On Wed, 2021-02-24 at 14:06 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote: > > It seemed the DS record idea stalled, because the authors didn't really > like the additional RTTs needed.
You have been repeating that we actively refuse to deal with the additional RTTs. This is untrue and unfair to the point of rudeness. We have repeatedly stated being open to this child verification, if the WG had interest, but it did not - only you. Now repeating that claim again, and even stretching it to be the reason the draft stalled, is hard to explain other than as some confused arrogance. DOTPIN stalled because people, quite rightfully, did not like the idea of putting a pin for one NSset in the DS records for a million domains. All other concerns (such as deciding the exact level of protocol abuse DOTPIN is) are minor in comparison. A later informal proposal to make that the registry's problem ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/xOVfHOR6FFFPxsFqM8eB44J-Db0/ ) never made it into a draft, because at the time it did not seem like the right direction for the WG. Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/ _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
