Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response

[Jim Reid jim@localhost]

On Nov 10, 2008, at 18:17, Edward Lewis wrote:

> #1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it.  (Why is it  
> there?  Did someone believe there was a technical justification to  
> add an organization?)
Ed, aside from the points that have already been explained to you,  
point 9 counteracts arguments that are likely to be made in other  
circles to establish/introduce some other entity to oversee the  
signing of the root. If/when those groups make that claim, there would  
be at least one emphatic statement from the Internet community  
refuting it.
> #2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements  
> but included some "here's a way to do it"s.  But then, this point is  
> not critical.
Well please re-read my introductory notes on the latest draft. The WG  
does not have a common view of how to sign the root. At least that  
what the mood seemed to be in Dubai. This is why we've tried to focus  
on requirements (where we can agree hopefully) than operational detail  
(where there are divergent opinions). If you want to debate  
operational details, go ahead. But please don't do that in a way that  
stops the WG from formulating a response to NTIA. Or you could present  
those technical details in your own response to the NTIA NoI.