At Tue, 01 Mar 2016 08:24:05 +1100, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >Please no. (Ed might disagree with me on this.) I think every document > > > >that talks about the DNS in the IETF is about the IANA-administered DNS > > > >except where loudly noted. > > > > > > I very much disagree coming from operating DNS on networks other than the > > > global public Internet. > > > > I'm with Ed here. In my understanding RFCs of DNS related protocols > > generally don't make such explicit notes but are still generally used > > in DNS operations in closed intranet. And I think that's more > > sensible default interpretation. So, if a document relies on specific > > characteristics of the IANA-administered DNS like this draft, it's > > better to note that explicitly (on the other hand, I don't think we > > should consider draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse to be limited > > to the IANA-administered DNS simply because it doesn't loudly note it > > can be used more generally). > You could apply the technique to any signed zone where you are not > worried about not having instant visibility after adding a new name > to the zone. It is the later that is a property of the root zone > which is missing in many others. People want to be able to create > a delegation in .com and have it available for use within a couple > of minutes. In case you are replying to my message: I guess we're talking about different things...I thought that the specific point in this sub-thread is that *given the author's intent is to focus on the root zone*, whether this should be explicitly noted or whether we should rather omit such a note as the obvious. You seem to talk about whether we should focus on the root in the first place or whether nsec-aggressiveuse is risky or not in general. That's a totally different discussion, on which I already stated I have no particular opinion. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
