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

[Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@localhost]

At 22:52 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote:
> 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.
How about "While there may be reasons supporting the creation or 
introduction of another organization in the process of signing the 
root zone, the reasons are not technical in nature."
I just think, judging from my reactions to #9, that the wording is 
not clearly getting the intention across.
> >  #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.
Perhaps therein lies the issue - I wasn't in Dubai. ;)  Meaning, all 
I have to go on is what was posted to the mailing list, not any 
background discussion.
> This is why we've tried to focus on requirements (where we can agree 
> hopefully)
> than operational detail (where there are divergent opinions).
This should be in the preamble then.  There's no problem with just 
sticking to requirements, but I was *expecting* that a "DNS WG" was 
going to give advice on how to do, rather than just what to do. 
Especially considering that the NTIA includes sample architectures.
It isn't that the DNS WG is missing the boat by sticking to 
requirements.  The statement should indicate that.
(OK, maybe you do in the last half of the final sentence of the preamble:

# "We present the following statement as the consensus view of
# our community (or the DNS Working Group?) about the principles
# that should form the basis of the introduction of a signed DNS root.
)

The $source-of-comments offers the following architectural guidelines 
when considering a process for signing the root.  The 
$source-of-comments feels
that proscribing technical details at this point is premature as there are
many different approaches to signing a DNS zone.  Yadda, yadda, yadda.

What's in the preamble is first an excuse for not proscribing a solution and
then saying all we will do is give you principles.  My advice here is to first
say what you are doing and then later say what you are not.

> 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.
I'd said earlier that I'd rather send my thoughts directly to the 
NTIA as requested than put it on the list.
What I'm saying is that the response seems to be lacking directness 
in it's message.  Hence, it reads very political and non-technical.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.