[RSSAC Caucus] RFC7701bis and RSSAC001 update proposal: require NSID

[Marc Blanchet]

> Le 1 mars 2023 à 09:57, Wes Hardaker <hardaker at isi.edu> a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> It could. My point is that there could be all sorts of technical requirements that RSOs may do, but is not “required” from the perspective of IETF.
> 
> I'm confused.  The current text proposal puts the support for returning an NSID field as a MUST.  Doesn't that make it a requirement?

Well, I guess my comment did not come across very well. First, let me repaste the whole paragraph I wrote, instead of the single sentence you extracted:

<paste>
"It could. My point is that there could be all sorts of technical requirements that RSOs may do, but is not “required” from the perspective of IETF. Hence not really needed in  RFC7720+. Again, the perspective of 7720 was a high-level minimal requirements from the IETF to RSO, not the whole set of possible requirements that could be implemented by RSOs. At that time, we refrain from going deep into every detail: we could have gone into DNSSEC algorithms, … 

Again, I’m not against anything, just want to make sure we understand the purpose of RFC7720 and its successors.”
</paste>

The idea of 7720 was so that the IAB/IETF would make sure that the RSO are doing their job to properly serve the DNS, at a high-level, leaving the “details” to the RSOs. And that was clear and agreed by the two parties, and in fact requested by the RSOs, that RSOs will take care of the “details”.  Therefore 7720 was a high-level document of requirements.  A good example of this, and it was discussed back then, was about saying anything about crypto parameters.

To me NSID is in the “details” of RSOs doing their work, not an essential need to “run the DNS Root service”.

Quoting RFC7720: 
- "It specifies basic requirements for the Internet that DNS clients meet when interacting with a root name service over the public Internet.” 
- "This section describes the minimum high-level protocol requirements.”

To me, NSID does not meet this.

If we start adding "detailed” requirements such as NSID, then we are opening a can of worms and start a way new different document with all sorts of “detailed” requirements that will be added. That is a very different course and actually not a RFC7720-bis, but just another document. The more requirements are put the more we, the IETF/IAB, are "parenting" RSOs, which was _not_ agreed at least at the time of RFC7720. If RSOs wants to document all their detailed technical/protocol requirements in an IETF document, then fine, start from scratch, and leave RFC7720 as is. However, my suggestion is that instead you put those into the RSSAC001. 

My 2 cents.

Marc.

> 
> [there is a SHOULD discussion around the contents of the field]
> 
> -- 
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssac-caucus/attachments/20230301/b6de355d/attachment-0001.html>