<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Dear fellow committee members,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Danielle and I received the message below from the Board Advice Team regarding RZERC002 (signed root name server data). I have provided some draft answers, but really I think these questions are for the committee as a whole. Some of these questions are about language in RSSAC028, which isn't this committee's document of course, but we might need to answer anyway.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">One somewhat tricky question in particular is what is meant by "a reduced set of glue records" (RSSAC028, recommendation 2). Since IPv6 root server addresses were answered, the full set of 26 glue records does not fit in the traditional 512-byte non-EDNS0 response. It has been the case for some time now that some priming responses have a reduced set of glue records. In my draft response I wrote "fewer than 13 IPv4 addresses" but this unsatisfying and perhaps unfair to IPv6. I'm open to suggestions. Maybe a reduced set of glue records is no longer really a concern.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">DW</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></body></html>