Should we remove the DLV code?

[Jim Reid]

> On 21 May 2019, at 16:00, Hugo Salgado-Hernández <hsalgado at nic.cl> wrote:
> 
> One important thing is that the "islands of security" concept
> may be necessary in different places (companies? communities?)
> and the DLV technique is not limited to the root. For the same
> reason I consider that Bind's support is vital.

This is unfortunate. And mistaken. Making a critical dependency on what was designed as a short-term ugly kludge was a bad idea. More so when it was known from the outset (or should have been known) that this kludge would one day go away.

ISC said DLV would go away once the root got signed. It's long outlived its usefulness (DLV that is, not ISC). The root first got signed ~10 years ago. That's more than enough time to make other arrangements and have an orderly withdrawal from DLV.

DLV must die. Two shots to the head, just to be sure.