On Jul 31, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > It really is an insecure delegation, not an unsigned delegation -- > calling it unsigned would be confusing to many people. The person I > was discussing it with wasn't aware of the term "insecure delegation" > and assumed that it meant an "unsigned delegation", which is, um, > difficult to achieve in a non-NSEC3 OO zone...
Ah, I wrote that text not imagining that .arpa was signed using good old-fashioned NSEC, which was silly of me. That said, I would rather not rely on interpretations of terminology the meaning of which isn't agreed upon. I think it would be better to simply specify that there will be no DS record. Does that make sense, or is there some reason why we have to say "unsigned?"
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
