<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Lars,<div> the drawback to unsync the two documents (RSSAC and IAB) is that the current text implied there were synched. While the IAB really wanted to proceed with the document, do we have any chance that RSSAC would publish his in the foreseable future? (we have a window between now and when drafting the new version to be published by the RFC editor). That way we can still accomplish the goal of synched documents. Otherwise, I agree with the reviewer below that the text in the IAB document needs to be modified accordingly.</div><div><br></div><div>can we get RSSAC to get his doc out soon?</div><div><br></div><div>Marc.<br><div><br><div>Début du message réexpédié :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>De: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">Paul Hoffman <<a href="mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org">paul.hoffman@vpnc.org</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Objet: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';"><b>Rép : Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice</b><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">28 mai 2014 12:47:34 UTC−4<br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>À: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">Russ Housley <<a href="mailto:housley@vigilsec.com">housley@vigilsec.com</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Cc: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">IESG <<a href="mailto:iesg@ietf.org">iesg@ietf.org</a>>, IETF discussion list <<a href="mailto:ietf@ietf.org">ietf@ietf.org</a>><br></span></div><br><div>On May 28, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Russ Housley <<a href="mailto:housley@vigilsec.com">housley@vigilsec.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">You have asked a question in a manner that assumes a technical assessment can be made. <br></blockquote><br>Correct. You (the IAB) are asking the IETF to obsolete a BCP (which means it has the same requirements as a standards-track document). The BCP asserts some technical properties; the IETF should be able to determine whether or not the new technical properties are an appropriate replacement for the old ones.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I do not think that is the situation. Instead, I think the question is whether the IETF is the proper organization to write a BCP about protocol requirements for root servers and RSSAC is the right organization to write a document about operational requirements for root servers. In short, this more of a political question than a technical one. Back when RFC 2870 was written, the IETF (rightly or wrongly) included both requirement sets in the same document.<br></blockquote><br>That seems fine, as long as the new document says that, which it does not. If the IETF is going to replace this BCP with one that has a smaller scope, it should say that up front and *not* refer to a document that we cannot yet read and may, in fact, have very different properties than the one in the references in this draft.<br><br>Current:<br> The operational requirements are defined in [RSSAC-001]. This<br> document defines the protocol requirements and some deployment<br> requirements.<br><br>Proposed:<br> This document only defines the protocol requirements and some<br> deployment requirements; the operational requirements that were<br> defined in RFC 2870 are removed. It is expected that ICANN's<br> RSSAC [RSSAC] will define the operational requirements.<br><br> [RSSAC] DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee,<br> <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/rssac">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/rssac</a><br><br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">From my perspective, IETF is the proper organization to write a BCP about protocol requirements.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br>Yes, definitely.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">RSSAC has been going through a restructuring process. Assuming that a functional organization emerges from that process, RSSAC will be a fine organization to handle the operational requirements.<br></blockquote><br>Yep. But that doesn't mean that this BCP should have a reference to a document we can't evaluate.<br><br>--Paul Hoffman</div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>