On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:26:00PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> >
> >I don't have strong feelings about whether the "LOA in an RFC" idea
> >is plausible, or even good, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway.
> >If there was consensus that such a document was worthwhile, I'd
> >happy to do the legwork (and it'd be sufficiently brief in content
> >and purpose that I could imagine it being thrown up to the IESG
> >fairly swiftly).
>
> I think it sounds like an excellent idea -- I think that you may still
> have some issues getting providers to accept it, but hopefully way
> fewer issues than you would otherwise...
>
> The other option would be to actually create a legal entity called
> "Root Server Technical Operations Assn" and have some way of
> automatically generating LOA's (maybe a web form that generates a
> PDF!), but this sounds like it may be a bad idea...
>
> W
>
> >
> >Comments and opinions welcome :-)
> >
> >
> >Joe
humph.... I think this is a surefire way to poison this prefix
forever. if the "IETF" is the body holding the delegation, then
they would be able to sign the ROA... otherwise, the body holding
the prefix (paying the bills) will be signing the ROA... the
system is not prepared to deal w/ anonymous roll/shell accounts.
(see the RBN mess)
so, i'm not persuaded that this si a smart or wise idea. its
hardcoding another special use prefix in millions of places all
over the net.
that said, i;m sure it will be seen as a provident/prudent way
forward and there will be herds of folks lining up in support.
good luck :)
--bill
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
