[dns-wg] NTIA response - v5

:Jim Reid wrote

Jim,
I speak in hat as a member of  ccTLD .ru dnssec wg.

We can support this statement in general too..
For  us - it will be most important to get more flexibility in current 
situation.
You should understand that we translated some pieces of text in our  
ways. and our interpretation in Russion could be different.

I am personally think that you and Patrick did a great job.
I expect that in result we can give our own statement aligned wittoo.h 
this one and with Russian translation and interpretation

thanks,
Dima
> I have updated the draft response to reflect today's comments. Aside 
> from tweaking the introductory paragraph -- I hope this now sets the 
> right tone without upsetting Stephane -- the significant change was to 
> move Rick's comments about trust to nomber 4 from number 12 on the 
> list. This seemed to be a more suitable place for this point.
>
> Is version 5 of the draft now something that the WG as a whole can 
> accept?
>
> PS: Please try to avoid suggestions on cosmetic changes to the text 
> unless these would improve the clarity. The WG needs to reach 
> consensus on a statement in a day or two. So we should try to focus on 
> what we are trying to say rather than how we are actually saying it. 
> Within reason of course....
>
> #
> #    $Id: ntia-draft,v 1.6 2008/11/05 22:36:42 jim Exp $
> #
>
> The RIPE community (or DNS WG?) thanks the NTIA for its consultation
> on proposals to sign the root and is pleased to offer the following
> response to that consultation. We urge the adoption of a solution that
> leads to the prompt introduction of a signed root zone. Our community
> considers the introduction of a signed root zone to be an essential
> enabling step towards widespread deployment of Secure DNS, DNSSEC.
>
> It is to be expected that a community as diverse as RIPE cannot have a
> unified set of detailed answers to the NTIA questionnaire. However 
> several
> members of the RIPE community will be individually responding to that
> questionnaire. 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.
>
> 1. Secure DNS, DNSSEC, is about data authenticity and integrity and
> not about control.
>
> 2. The introduction of DNSSEC to the root zone must be recognised as a
> global initiative.
>
> 3. Addition of DNSSEC to the root zone must be done in a way that does
> not compromise the security and stability of the Domain Name System.
>
> 4. When balancing the various concerns about signing the root zone,
> the chosen approach must provide an appropriate level of trust and
> confidence by offering a maximally secure technical solution.
>
> 5. Deployment of a signed root should be done in a timely but not
> hasty manner.
>
> 6. To assist with a timely deployment, any procedural changes
> introduced by DNSSEC should be aligned with the current process for
> coordinating changes to and the distribution of the root zone. However
> those procedural changes should provide sufficient flexibility to
> allow for the roles and processes as well as the entities holding
> those roles to be changed after suitable consultations have taken
> place.
>
> 7. Policies and processes for signing the root zone should make it
> easy for TLDs to supply keys and credentials so the delegations for
> those TLDs can be signed.
>
> 8. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to
> oversee the process of signing of the root.
>
> 9. No data should be moved between organisations without appropriate
> authenticity and integrity checking.
>
> 10. The public part of the key signing key must be distributed as
> widely as possible.
>
> 11. The organisation that generates the root zone file must sign the
> file and therefore hold the private part of the zone signing key.
>
> 12. Changes to the entities and roles in the signing process must not
> necessarily require a change of keys.
>