[ksk-change] planned vs. emergency (was Re: [ksk-rollover] root zone KSK ...)

Peter Koch pk at denic.de
Mon Sep 22 15:50:28 UTC 2014

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:37:07PM +0000, Olaf Kolkman wrote:

> The question is really what sort of breakage (and associated costs) do we accept now versus when we do have an inherit operational reason. I believe, but that is not very helpful I realize, that by accepting some breakage today (mainly accepting (d)) we will reduce the fraction of folk that suffer (d) in the future.  At some point that argument will not hold because the amount of people in the (d) category are to many or more than only a number of early deployers that still track the technology developments.

I've had a lot of sympathy for the 'operational habit' school of thought
when we discussed this for 4641 and, subsequently, 6781.  I'm less convinced
today, seeing that all of the tedious rollovers tend to have been
"fully automated" to the extent that all details are hidden from
the real operator.  Now, maybe we've trained SW vendors this way,
for what it's worth, but the early idea to drill for regular
rollovers to ease emergency ones probably doesn't hold.


More information about the ksk-rollover mailing list