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

[Michael Richardson]

Paul Ebersman <list-ksk-rollover at dragon.net> wrote:
    msj> o I mostly agree with this, and would totally agree if we were
    msj> completely 5011 based, but that's not the case. I think there needs
    msj> to be an "interested parties" announcement even if this isn't
    msj> announced widely. E.g. ISPs that do manual configuration on
    msj> roll-their-own DNS resolvers etc.

    salz> If you pre-announce to interested parties, then you are not helping
    salz> those parties learn how to handle unannounced emergencies.

    > It is not the IETF's job to tell large ISP that they must do 5011. We
    > need to consider that the world will never be all 5011 and that
    > alternate automation methods are valid and how we'd address that in an
    > emergency.

I don't really understand the long-term reasons for not doing 5011.
Can you explain this further?

I understand short-to-medium term "software not ready" issues, but not
long-term resistence to 5011.    [Can ISPs still use HOSTS.TXT ?]

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ksk-rollover/attachments/20190328/48bf6417/signature.asc>