[ksk-change] Capabilities of validating systems we need to consider

Olaf Kolkman kolkman at isoc.org
Mon Sep 22 13:28:40 UTC 2014

On Sep 22, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org<mailto:paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>> wrote:

I argue that we ignore category (3). If we allow ourselves to be ossified by that type of mistake we will never be able to roll. In fact the argument for roll early and often is to make sure to weed out all existence of (3) and make category (2) aware that they will need to pay attention.

I agree that we should not cater at all to the systems in category 3, but we cannot ignore that they exist. By saying that they exist and that we do not intend to cater to them, we can possibly get them into category 2. If someone says "but my system's documentation on how to add a KSK is wrong!" we can say "yep, you're in category 3". That's better for the Internet than us saying "we don't know that you exist".

yes, I agree with that.

— — — — — — — — — —
Olaf Kolkman
(on personal title)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ksk-rollover/attachments/20140922/ecbad11b/attachment.html>

More information about the ksk-rollover mailing list