> On 28 Sep 2017, at 12:53, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
> 
> As far as I am aware, nothing is on fire. Given the lack of time criticality, 
> I would have thought it’d be more important to the technical communities to 
> have more concrete data to present. Given propagation delays in non-technical 
> circles, I believe ICANN comms felt doing a “normal” press announcement-style 
> approach sooner rather than later and then providing more details to folks 
> who were interested later was a better approach. YMMV.

David, I would have expected some sort of announcements via the usual suspects 
mailing lists would have been part of that “normal” communication approach. 
YMMV. Instead, I learnt about the postponement because of a hearsay comment 
about a tweet.

More details would of course be welcome. [And I’m sure forthcoming.] In due 
course. When the time is right. Blah, blah, blah. However if that info isn’t 
yet available for sharing, it shouldn’t have prevented announcements to the 
expected technical/operational mailing lists. I don’t understand why those 
lists weren’t told or how using those channels to get the word out could have 
been harmful.

> We made an announcement within a few hours of making the decision to postpone 
> the KSK rollover and are proceeding to attempt to gather more information to 
> inform the community. Do you feel the fact that we did not send that 
> announcement to technical mailing lists despite not having that additional 
> information have an operational impact on resolver operators?

Perhaps. There wouldn’t of course be an impact on resolving and validation. 
There may however be second-order effects. Responsible resolver operators may 
well have lined up a small army of staff to be on call and prepare for problems 
and/or TEOTWAWKI on the 11th. If so, they wouldn’t need to wait for that 
additional information so they could tell their helpdesks and ops people to 
stand down. It wouldn’t immediately matter to them why the rollover was being 
postponed, just that this was happening and that any resolver operator planning 
for that event could be postponed too. From that perspective I think it would 
have been better to communicate the news as widely as reasonably possible.


Reply via email to