[rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: Elements of Potential Root Operators v2.

[Robert Martin-Legene]

On 2016-09-29 16:16, Wessels, Duane wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Wessels, Duane <dwessels at verisign.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Mcconachie <andrew.mcconachie at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 version 2.2. Redline and clean versions in both pdf and MS Word are attached.
>>>>
>>>> Duane and I worked to include the feedback we received from the two conference calls we had on this document.
>>>>
>>>> Three things that we feel should be highlighted:
>>>> 1. Section 3.3.7(Address Registries) has been largely rewritten.
>>> This is the section which mentions RPKI.  The text now says:
>>>
>>> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the RIRs have been working to develop and implement standards for routing security in the form of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). At the time of publication the RSSAC was not able to reach consensus on whether RPKI should be included in the evaluation of a candidate operator.
>> I really do not like this wording since, by not ‘endorsing’ the use of RPKI & ROAs, RSSAC is essentially saying that they are negative about the technology.  I strongly object to the negative inference and would rather see no mention of the technology at all than the negative stance inferred in the current wording.
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Russ.
>
> So I'm hearing a proposal from Russ to strike that paragraph.  In that case the entire section 3.3.7 would read:
>
> ==============================================================================
> 3.3.7 Address Registries
>
> The candidate operators address space SHOULD be accurately registered in
> one of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) public databases.  Additionally,
> the candidate SHOULD have appropriate entries in relevant public routing
> registries for their IPv4 and IPv6 address space.
> ==============================================================================
>
>
> How does everyone feel about that?
>

I agree with Russ' point of view and the new text looks good.

(Even though I'm not personally convinced about the ROAs either)


-- 
Robert MARTIN-LEGENE
Internet Infrastructure Specialist
Packet Clearing House


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssac-caucus/attachments/20160929/e057249b/signature.asc>