[ksk-rollover] (Un)planning future KSK replacements

[Michael StJohns]

On 3/28/2019 6:19 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>   * I mostly agree with this, and would totally agree if we were
>     completely 5011 based, but that's not the case.  I think there
>     needs to be an "interested parties" announcement even if this
>     isn't announced widely.  E.g. ISPs that do manual configuration on
>     roll-their-own DNS resolvers etc.
>
> If you pre-announce to interested parties, then you are not helping 
> those parties learn how to handle unannounced emergencies.
>
So basically, the 5011 signalling would be the announcement? *shrug* WFM.

Mike


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ksk-rollover/attachments/20190328/28668e7b/attachment.html>