[Gnso-ssr] discussion -- SAC063 -- SSAC Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone

[Greg Aaron]

Dear Mikey:

 

The Board made these resolutions about SAC063:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-21nov13-en.htm#2.
e   According to that, Fadi has until February 19 to make a recommendation
to the Board.  (If Fadi doesn't recommend that all the recommendations be
accepted, presumably the rationale will be published.)  Where Fadi
recommends that any advice be accepted, he is supposed to have the
feasibility and costs and an implementation plan with timelines and
high-level milestones for review by the Board no later than March 21.
That's right before ICANN Singapore begins.  

 

The key rollover metrics will require significant technical expertise to
develop.  

 

Fadi has the same deadlines as above for SAC062 (Name Collisions):

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-21nov13-en.htm#2.
d 

 

So track those four deadlines related to SAC062 and SAC063.  

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

From: gnso-ssr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ssr-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:41 AM
To: GNSO SSR List
Subject: [Gnso-ssr] discussion -- SAC063 -- SSAC Advisory on DNSSEC Key
Rollover in the Root Zone

 

hi all,

 

here's a last thread to talk about the root-key rollover topic and a
starter-kit of GNSO-oriented questions

 

- has the worldwide publicity effort been taken up?

 

- is there anything the GNSO SGs and Constituencies can do to help with this
effort?  Could the root-key rollover outreach be used to leverage the
broader goal of better-engaging with the technical community?

 

- how's that testbed coming along?  again, could this collaboration be a
point of leverage for broader technical outreach efforts?

 

- how are those metrics coming?  are they something that could be worked
into the Data and Metrics for Policy-Making non-PDP WG that we are just
launching in the GNSO?

 

- where is the rollback procedure at?  is that something that the GNSO take
a look at before it's implemented?

 

- is there anything that the GNSO, and/or the GNSO Council, should be doing
in Singapore to help move this along?

 

- are there any other questions people would like to raise about this
report?

 

SAC063:  SSAC Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone

 

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-063-en.pdf

 

Recommendations:

 

Recommendation 1: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) staff, in coordination with the other Root Zone Management Partners
(United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and Verisign), should immediately
undertake a significant, worldwide communications effort to publicize the
root zone KSK rollover motivation and process as widely as possible.

  

Recommendation 2: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise
encourage the creation of a collaborative, representative testbed for the
purpose of analyzing behaviors of various validating resolver
implementations, their versions, and their network environments (e.g.,
middle boxes) that may affect or be affected by a root KSK rollover, such
that potential problem areas can be identified, communicated, and addressed.

 

Recommendation 3: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise
encourage the creation of clear and objective metrics for acceptable levels
of "breakage" resulting from a key rollover.

 

Recommendation 4: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise
encourage the development of rollback procedures to be executed when a
rollover has affected operational stability beyond a reasonable boundary.

 

Recommendation 5: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise
encourage the collection of as much information as possible about the impact
of a KSK rollover to provide input to planning for future rollovers.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssr/attachments/20140212/85b5676b/attachment.html>