On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:28:52AM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> >I actually don't think we have any serious disagreement here.
> >ICANN's management of the root zone is cautious for all sorts of
> >reasons, and as you note the root server operators have no plans to
> >say no to what ICANN offers them. It's always been clear that one
> >reason is that the consequences if any of the root servers felt
> >unable or unwilling to accept ICANN's root would be too awful to
> >contemplate, so it'll never happen.
>
> No, it's not too awful to contemplate. Far from it. As a matter of
> prudent planning, consideration of the consequences of a root operator
> refusing to update the root zone is definitely something that ought to
> be part of contingency and disaster planning.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
actually, from a stability, resiliency and surviabily point of
view (or just call it contingency and disaster planning) one should
seriously look at -ALL- the actors who have an operational role
in the creation and publication of the root zone.
In general, the root operators have a fairly long track record
of ensuring the zone gets there. Some operators are newer at the
task than others, some of the other actors are just on their first
decade of service.
any credible contingency and disaster planning would have to
include -ALL- of the operational actors in a coordinated
response, not something driven by one of them.
IMHO of course.
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
