[rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: Elements of Potential Root Operators

[Alejandro Acosta]

El 9/8/2016 a las 5:13 PM, Wessels, Duane escribió:
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Alejandro Acosta <alejandro at lacnic.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>   I just have a very small comment and I'm curious about something:
>>
>> 1)  In:
>>
>>
>>   3.6.2 Sample “x.root-servers.org” Web Page
>> The candidate operator SHOULD demonstrate their ability to maintain a <LETTER>.root-servers.org web page by providing a mock-up in HTML.
>>
>>
>>   I think it's a good idea to add one more sentence with something like: ".... "  "<LETTER>.root-servers.org or whatever other naming architecture appears. 
>>
>>   My rationale is that in the future there is chance of root-servers.org to change, right?
> Yes
>
>>
>> 2) Is it fair to ask the operator to keep up to date their software and be willing to adapt to new changes?.  I think it's not mention in the document (sorry if it's and I missed it).  For example something like this might happen: suppose the operator have an OS that does not support IDN?, or firewalls that refuses EDNS or AAAAs?
> This sort of feels like two separate items to me.  
>
> (1) you're suggesting that the operator needs to keep software up-to-date

Yes.., sort of that.

>
> (2) systems must support certain DNS features (IDN, EDNS, all query types).
>
> I feel like (2) is already covered well by the requirements of RFC7720.

Actually you are right.

>
> For (1) I don't know what else we can do in this document other than say the candidate operator must promise to keep their software up-to-date:
>
>   "Do you promise to keep your software up-to-date?"
>
>   "I sure do!"
>
>   "Okay, great!"
>
> Our existing section 3.4.6 on Openness and Participation is not much different than that, however.  If you'd like to propose some text for a new section then we can all consider adding it.

It can be something like this.., excuse me that English is not my native
language:
" The operator is expected to follow and adapt to new technology changes
that might arise in the future that could affect in a negative way the
DNS Service being offered. "

Thanks,

Alejandro,

>
> DW
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alejandro,
>>
>>
>> El 9/6/2016 a las 4:42 PM, Andrew Mcconachie escribió:
>>> Dear RSSAC Caucus,
>>>
>>> On behalf of the work party for RSSAC Workshop 2 Statement 4, attached please find Key Technical Elements of Potential Root Operators.
>>>
>>> This work party first met on June 23, 2016 and roughly every other week thereafter. For more information on the creation of this work party, please see the section on Evolution from the Report from the 2nd RSSAC Workshop.
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-workshop-26jun16-en.pdf
>>>
>>> The work party invites you to review this document and provide your feedback by close of business 4 October 2016.
>>>
>>> Feedback should be sent to the RSSAC Caucus list directly.
>>>
>>> There will also be two teleconferences held to discuss this document and capture feedback. Doodle polls for exact times forthcoming.
>>> September 15th
>>> September 22nd
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rssac-caucus mailing list
>>>
>>> rssac-caucus at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
>> _______________________________________________
>> rssac-caucus mailing list
>> rssac-caucus at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus