Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,
At 09:34 22-05-2014, Joe Abley wrote:
>Some reaction to your comments below, plus a comment of my own. I'll 
>note that I am not a root server operator, although in the past I 
>have played one on TV. My comments on your

Ok. :-)

>I understand that RSSAC have made recent progress on that document, 
>and that it will appear soon. I would presume that the RFC Editor 
>would hold final publication of this document, once approved, until 
>that reference showed up, as is the case for references to IETF 
>documents. I don't know whether that's a good presumption though. I 
>just thought I'd mention it as a plausible workflow.

I would usually be okay with the workflow.  The referenced document 
is currently a forward-looking statement.  I suggest delaying the 
IESG approval until that document is available or else changing the 
text in the draft to reflect the current state of affairs.

>At any time many parts of the Internet are unreachable from other 
>parts of the Internet, for many reasons unrelated to specifications 
>(national issues, cable breaks, failures in particular networks, 
>peering disputes, etc.)
>
>I'll note that the document describes requirements for the 
>*service*, not for any particular component of the service.

Yes.

>So I think this concern is orthogonal to the purpose and contents of 
>this document.

I mentioned this as long-running problems provides material for 
non-technical arguments.

>I actually think that it makes sense to separate the requirements 
>for the root name *service* from the contents of the root zone that 
>is being served. The document requires the service to support DNSSEC 
>(which I think is right and proper), and has nothing to say about 
>the contents of the root zone (which again, I think is right and proper).

Section 3 broaches the topic of "contents of the Root Zone".  I read 
some past comments from the IAB about DNSSEC.  The terms used were 
"implementation" and "deployment".  It looks like the requirement 
fits in this draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy