What clause would DNS Root Anycast stability fall under?
--Dean
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Peter Koch wrote:
> Dean,
>
> > > If you could support this observation by tangible textual reference, that
> > > would
> > > be appreciated. As a side note, there is an IETF liaison to ICANN,
> > > independent
> > > of whatever WG charter.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean to dispute. The text of the charter I quoted
> > cites "This will include root zone name servers, gTLD name servers
> > [...]" I don't think it can be made plainer.
>
> the fact that name servers dealing with a certain level in the DNS hierarchy
> or
> with certain parts of the DNS tree are not or are no longer explicitly
> mentioned
> does not imply that they could not taken into special consideration where
> appropriate.
>
> > The liason role is communicative; the liason communicates the consensus
> > of (in this case) DNSOP. The person of liason has not previously been
> > the sole technical expert provided by the IETF. But if that becomes so,
> > this isn't what is described in the MoU. The IETF technical expertise
>
> IETF Liaisons are appointed by and report to the IAB. There is an IAB
> statement regarding the IETF's Liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors at
> <http://www.iab.org/liaisons/icann/icann-liaison.html>. Neither DNSOP nor
> any other IETF WG is mentioned there and is at the sole discretion of the
> IAB to consult with IETF WGs in its (the IAB's) role of assisting the
> Liaison in executing their duties. I asked you to provide tangible reference
> (i.e. "chapter and verse") to support your view of DNSOP having a special
> role w.r.t. root server operations. I fail to see this information having
> been provided. Also, there was no support of your view. Therefore I consider
> this issue closed.
>
> > People in favor of changing the charter indeed held the position you
> > describe. But my recollection is that the charter wasn't changed; those
> > people didn't have a consensus to change the charter that way at that
> > time.
>
> The sad fact is that me dropped the ball on the charter work.
>
> > > Note however, that the charter as proposed would _not_ prevent the
> > > DNSOP WG from, say, updating RFC 2870.
> >
> > Under what provision of the new charter would RFC 2870 fall under?
>
> The general clause
>
> The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review guidelines
> for the correct, efficient and secure configuration, administration, and
> operation of DNS authoritative servers, resolvers, and DNSSEC validators.
>
> would certainly cover this.
>
> -Peter [with hat]
>
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
