On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:39:15PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: >> My concern is whether this draft is the right place for such text. >> The IANA process is a special case and is not concerned with the >> timing issues that are the focus of the document; as such, it may >> belong more in something that describes how that timing sequence has >> been implemented in a particular case. >> > > But that particular case could be the norm! > Currently, not only the root has this policy. RIPE[1] and .br[2] also > requires prepublication of dnskeys.
I'm not entirely sure that the draft ought to reflect what people do, because one could argue that that requirement is a mistake. But in any case, they're still infrastructure domains, just as is ., and the analogy between them and everything else breaks down pretty quickly. I think the draft is _not_ the place for this advice. If advice is needed, it should go in 4641-bis. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
