[RZERC] [Ext] Re: Possible scenarios to take up or turn down

[Kim Davies]

Hi Jim,

"Jim Reid" <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

    Ditto. Though I appreciate IANA might well appreciate having RZERC approve/review these sorts of changes to existing processes. Assuming there’s no other appropriate third party which could do that.
    …
    See above. If changes to the technical check criteria (say) are to be in scope Kim, so should a change to the location(s) of the root’s KSK repository. And for the same sorts of reasons: ie some sort of notionally independent third party sanity check.
    
Agreed.

    OK. I wonder though if we need to think much about this.
    
    An illustrative list of what is and isn’t in scope has the potential to take on a life of its own. Or be seen by others to be a definitive list that lives forever and can never be changed. We should be very careful about that. Particularly once the current RZERC membership has moved on and the institutional memories we have today have either been forgotten or mutated tomorrow.
    
    Straw man suggestion: how about expecting anyone who asks RZERC to do any work provides a justification of why their proposal is in scope?
    
So I think this scoping exercise is valuable because I expect that my team will be the primary instigator of issues that will be brought to the RZERC, and my concern is we will go along a path of implementing a change only to find out too late that RZERC felt it was obligated to go through them first. By getting a good sense of roughly where everyone’s opinions lay, it will give us some confidence as to what issues clearly need to come here, clearly do not need to come here, and those that are on-the-fence which we’ll likely to flag early on and get a read on whether we need to factor RZERC consideration into our planning.

It could be we are all well aligned, but hypothesizing now will hopefully illuminate areas where members feel differently in order to avoid issues in the future.

kim