[dns-operations] Some DNSSEC trivia
drc at virtualized.org
Wed Jan 9 17:15:23 UTC 2008
Speaking only for myself, but I suspect that if _some_ (nudge, nudge,
wink, wink) organization were to come up with a set of well-defined
objective criteria and submitted those criteria to IANA, it could
provide a basis for an IANA-driven public consultation in the vast
mysterious universe that is ICANN which would get the ball rolling...
Of course, given the way ICANN is required to work, don't expect
On Jan 9, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 10:47 -0500 1/9/08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:30:48AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> The registry *already* have this requirement. None of them
>>> became a registry before RFC 1034 was published. They have
>>> already bought into the requirement whether they realise
>>> it or not.
>> You seem to be missing my point, which is that not everyone agrees
>> with you that this is in fact a requirement; and that we have a
>> mechanism for deciding whether it _is_ a requirement for a large
>> number of registries. That mechanism is the consensus process in
>> ICANN. If you don't like the results of that consensus
>> then I encourage you either to work within ICANN to change the
>> determination, or else work to replace ICANN. But saying over and
>> over again that there's a requirement, when others do not agree there
>> is one, is not proving anything.
> Me too. (Caveat: ICANN is the flagship place to discuss this. I bet
> there are other policy boards, governing a ccTLD, that rely on ICANN
> policies as a guide, not formally having to conform.)
> I looked through RFC 1034 and couldn't any such requirement. But
> even if it were, it comes down to what's in the contracts and not the
> RFCs that matters.
> Edward Lewis
> Think glocally. Act confused.
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.oarci.net
More information about the dns-operations