At 11:27 -0700 8/27/07, Ted Hardie wrote:
After reading the document, I do not believe it has
sufficient detail to be advice to IANA.
I agree with that. I've sent details on this privately to the
editor, WG chair, and IESG secretary as that is mostly a matter of
mechanics.
I think even that is an inaccurate reflection of this document.
"Should the IETF instruct the IANA to set up this registry?" would
be a closer reading, at least in my opinion. My answer to that
question is no.
After getting my head up out of the registry operations quicksand I
am becoming increasingly convinced that setting up a DLV at IANA is
the wrong step to take.
The second is that these instructions essentially
force the use of at least two DLVs.
That's very convincing to me. Having a second DLV operator doesn't
benefit the public Internet enough to ask IANA to take on the extra
role.
And yes, if there is to be DNSSEC anywhere the public Internet root
zone ought to be signed.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Think glocally. Act confused.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf