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

[Wes Hardaker]

>
>
>
> To me, NSID does not meet this.
>

For me, the requirement for NSID comes from the requirement for a resolver
operator to be able to debug their interaction with the RSS, which is very
hard without a unique identifier being returned within the NSID field from
that operator.  Thus a requirement to make the system more
fail-safe/debuggable.

I do get your point about the split, and applaud it.  For me, the RFC
should contain technical elements and the RSSAC001 document should contain
policy elements.  I think the point we're stuck at is "should there be a
place to document the 'we want to have X, but it's not a requirement' and
if there should be a place/list, where should that place/list go?".
Certainly one alternative is to refuse to have a list, or anything related
to a SHOULD/MAY type specification leaving only the "if you don't do this,
the system won't work at all".  But then, it gets even more tricky; EG, is
Ipv4 really required by *every* RSO?  Are checksums *really* required?  And
why MUST they be validated?  Does the system as a whole fail when these
don't apply?  The document could be very very short if we only stick to the
"do this or it breaks" list.  But, you're right it's a slippery slope and
somewhere a line needs to be drawn or at least organized into multiple
lines.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssac-caucus/attachments/20230301/2ca1d35a/attachment.html>