On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 01:11:46PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > As for RFC 5011, it is a crock. We should be using something like > CDS with start and end dates plus retry timers. […] > That > said there are some really broken EDNS implementations out there. […] > We also have a the following draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue > which covers this as well as other issues. To be clear, then, the reduction of available port numbers that is the result of A+P is solved by some proposals in a couple Internet-Drafts, neither of which yet has critical mass, and that depend on a feature of the DNS that is still broken in lots of places more than 10 years after its specification? Also, you think that the only actual DNSSEC TA rollover mechanism we standardized is a crock? I'm just trying to calibrate what "perfectly fine" means before I send my comments on the A+P standards-track request. Thanks, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx