You're simply using a different definition of "depend" than I am.
When you say "it does depend", you mean that in the rare cases where a domain owner has chosen (weirdly) to sign with DNSSEC, LetsEncrypt will enforce DNSSEC validation on that domain.
When I say "it does not depend", I mean that the basic functioning of LetsEncrypt does not in any way rely on DNSSEC. As I've said in the last several comments, LetsEncrypt will continue to function just fine when DNSSEC goes away, and a security failure in DNSSEC (for instance: if the root keys were posted to Pastebin) would literally not impact LetsEncrypt --- today's LetsEncrypt! --- at all.
I'm fine with you using the word "depend" to mean "uses, in any situation, ever", but you're clear now on what we're trying to say, and the semantic part of the debate should be over.
When you say "it does depend", you mean that in the rare cases where a domain owner has chosen (weirdly) to sign with DNSSEC, LetsEncrypt will enforce DNSSEC validation on that domain.
When I say "it does not depend", I mean that the basic functioning of LetsEncrypt does not in any way rely on DNSSEC. As I've said in the last several comments, LetsEncrypt will continue to function just fine when DNSSEC goes away, and a security failure in DNSSEC (for instance: if the root keys were posted to Pastebin) would literally not impact LetsEncrypt --- today's LetsEncrypt! --- at all.
I'm fine with you using the word "depend" to mean "uses, in any situation, ever", but you're clear now on what we're trying to say, and the semantic part of the debate should be over.