> IMHO, we should be > providing options not mandates for what to use.
As an analogy, consider DoH vs. TCP/UDP as a DNS transport. Some DNS transports are generally mandatory to support, and some are optional. I think the same approach would be appropriate for LocalRoot: we should have a clear distinction between the self-contained core and the optional extensions. We could simply say that LocalRoot as a whole is an optional extension, but I really like LocalRoot, and would like to see it deployed to most resolvers. (It may end up being valuable for privacy.) > IXFR actually isn't useful for signed zones, as the IXFR content ends up > being about the same size after every zone signing. Interesting! I don't understand why so many RRSIGs need to change in every revision, but I assume that is hard to fix now. >> The proposed "root zone publication points" system effectively >> introduces a hard dependency on HTTP, to accomplish the equivalent of >> what DNS Priming does in-band. > No, it says that both AXFR and HTTP records should be available for use. Yes, but how do you get that list? (Presumably via HTTP.) --Ben
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
