On 2010-09-29, at 16:04, David Conrad wrote: > Useful draft. A couple of comments/questions: > > In section 2.1: > > "The document contains a complete set of > trust anchors for the root zone, including anchors suitable for > immediate use and also historical data." > > This strikes me as asking for trouble after the trust anchor is rolled. I'm > not sure we want to codify ephemeral information like a trust anchor in an > RFC.
Well, we're not -- we're just codifying the location of historical data. The data itself is codified in the XML file. If you're suggesting that IANA should attempt to expunge from all places any references to an old trust anchor following a role, I don't think I agree. I think for diagnostic purposes and even just reasons of historical interest an authoritative catalogue of previously-used trust anchors is useful. > In section 2.2: > > " Each CSR will have a Subject with following attributes: > > O: the string "ICANN"." > > Out of curiosity, what happens if ICANN is no longer performing the IANA > functions contract? Presumably there is always the potential for change. This I-D seeks to document current practice, which is as-described. > In section 4: > > " This document contains information about an existing service, and has > no IANA actions." > > It seems to me this document is all about IANA actions, specifically the ones > that provide the existing service. I'd have assumed the IANA actions > associated with this document would be maintaining and updating the content > at the various URLs referenced in the document (in particular, pretty much > all of section 3). My reading of RFC 5226 was that this section should concern itself with actions that the IANA should take in direct consequence of this document. There are no such actions in this case, which is why I used "no IANA actions". Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
