Hi James, Q1. Both. The root zone, as a registry, is not an IETF registry.
Q2. My guess, and I am really guessing here, that if a process were to be
created by the ICANN community to accept such requests from the IETF, it would
be encompassing of both.
Cheers
Terry
On 30/03/2017, 12:48 AM, "homenet on behalf of james woodyatt"
<homenet-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j...@google.com> wrote:
q1. What precisely about “3” is not covered in IETF policy terms? That the
document directs IANA to request a delegation in the root zone? Or that the
document directs IANA to request an *insecure* delegation in the root zone,
whereas a secure delegation
*would* be adequately covered? Or both of these?
q2. If the answer to q1 is that both aspects of “3” are not covered in IETF
policy terms, and that each one will require a set of collaborative discussions
with the ICANN community and new processes that handle each of these
situations, are there any expectations
about which of the two processes, if there are two and not just one, can
be defined in a workable period of time for HOMENET?
--james woodyatt <j...@google.com>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
