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

[Phil Regnauld]

Salz, Rich via ksk-rollover (ksk-rollover) writes:
>   *   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.

	+1.

	The one thing that worries me most here is that if we don't make
	KSK rollovers part of something your software and/or distro deals
	with automatically, each pre-announced roll will result in huge
	amounts of of time and resources wasted on long threads on various
	mailing lists, with the risk of bringing the n+1 roll to a grinding
	halt if the least doubt arises. We are nearly 9 *years* into the
	signed root. Mission accomplished ?

	As Pieter wrote:

> There are non-5011 ways to get the anchors (e.g. time fetches of the
> XML). But a list for announcements to interested parties, without the
> publication fanfare makes sense to not spring this on people.

	... so yeah, work with the vendors/distros, make this as automatic
	and normal as possible, so we can use our time on other issues that
	haven't been solved yet ;)

	Cheers,
	Phil