Re: [DNSOP] Closing out issues in draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming

["Joe Abley" <[e-mail]>]

On 15 Oct 2015, at 20:06, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> The two open issues are in Section 4:
>
> 4.  Requirements for Root Name Servers and the Root Zone

I think it might be worth stepping up a level here and understanding 
what this document can reasonably specify.

2870 has long been recognised to be obsolete. The direction for fixing 
that (which, who knows, might actually result in action at some point) 
can be summarised as the union of draft-iab-2870bis (currently approved 
for BCP, sitting in the RFC Editor queue) and RSSAC-001 (currently 
waiting for 2870bis to be published).

The approach being taken is that the IETF provides protocol-level 
requirements, and RSSAC documents the operational expectations that are 
reasonable to have of root server operators.

Analogously, and relevant to this document, the contents of the root 
zone, the names of root servers, and the operational practicalities of 
the ROOT-SERVERS.NET zone (contents, and where it is hosted) are 
currently managed by the IANA Functions Operator under contract. RSSAC 
is currently working on analysis and advice to ICANN on the question of 
whether the current naming scheme could be improved upon.

This document, I believe, needs some revision to make sure it stays on 
the right side of the line between technical policy (from the IETF), 
administrative policy (from the IANA Functions Operator) and operational 
policy (from the root server operators, as documented by RSSAC).

So, for example:

> The operational requirements for root name servers are described in
> [RFC2870].  This section specifies additional guidance for the
> configuration of and software deployed at the root name servers.

I think this document needs to be clear that the requirements it is 
imposing on the system as a whole are protocol-level requirements, and 
not operational or administrative.

I am deliberately not suggesting edits to the current text or responding 
to the two issues you highlighted in this message; I think it's 
important to get consensus first about the scope of guidance that this 
document can provide.

To be clear, I think it's important and necessary that the priming 
process be documented; I just think we need to be careful that we do it 
from a protocol perspective.


Joe