[dns-wg] .ORG DNSSEC Survey

On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:01 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:28:09PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>> At 19:53 -0700 6/24/08, David Conrad wrote:
>>> ...polled -some- root server operators..
> 	Emphasis mine

Actually, the sentence you attribute to me was also yours.

>> If indeed the (ICANN) root server operators have misgiving about the
>> experiment, could someone operating a root server express the  
>> reasons?
>
> 	two things here.  DRC didn't not poll -all- the
> 	operators, only some subset that he selected.

Indeed (ignoring the presumably spurious 'not' in the above  
sentence).  I also spoke to folks who weren't root server operators  
(gasp) to provide the secondary service for the demo/test DNSSEC- 
signed root zone.  The goal wasn't to replicate the root server  
"system" (what would be the point of that?), rather it was to obtain  
secondaries for a production-quality demo/test service that would go  
away once the real root zone was signed. I was specifically looking  
for professionally-operated widely distributed anycast services that  
had a track record of knowing how to provide root-level DNS and who  
could spell DNSSEC. As you yourself are aware, there are folks other  
than the existing root server operators who can do that sort of thing...

> 	re misgivings about sanctioned alternate roots that
> 	remain persistant...

Hence the requirement for an agreement, the exact thing into which  
some of the root server operators I spoke to refused to enter (the non- 
root server operator folks I spoke to understood the rationale and had  
no such qualms).

> 	in this case, (one) of the concerns is the defacto
> 	hijacking of the root zone editorial function - which
> 	is still done under contract/MOU wiht DoC and VSGN.

Riiight.

Funny: the data served by ns.iana.org for the DEMO/TEST (hint: not the  
root name service the data for which is published by VeriSign) service  
was derived from ftp://ftp.internic.net/domains/root.zone.  Of course,  
discussions with the root server operators didn't get very far once  
the term "agreement" came up and I quickly lost interest trying to  
pursue it.  My patience for purely non-technical politics isn't what  
it used to be (and it wasn't that good to begin with).

Regards,
-drc