[dnssec-key-tf] [barbara.roseman at icann.org: Re: TLD trust Anchor Repository]

Joao,

> RIPE meeting, the (big) differences being:
> - the IANA has well established relations with most TLDs
> - Daniel doesn't get the work, someone else does

fully understood and that's what we've been discussing at length, no
disagreement.  Maybe I just read too much into Barbara's message.

So, to answer Daniel's question, I think none of the 11 requirements
is inappropriate in this case, but some might need refinement:

> [5] Everybody should sign up to T&C's that hold everyone else harmless.

That's the TAR maintainer and the key maintainer and? any potential user?

> [7] The TAR must make it clear what they keying material is for and
>     its political significance: eg "we're not undermining IANA" (or
>     perhaps not) or "we make no claims about the appropriateness of the
>     stuff in our TAR" (national sovereignty & competition issues).

Given that [11] would mean TAs get inserted only with the consent of the
key maintainer, is "appropriateness" still the right term?  More important
here would be some statement saying that "signing the root" is still a
goal (if it is) and that's why the requirements about exit strategies
should be kept.

> [8] The TAR should treat all parties equally. Provided they
>     demonstrate suitable levels of DNSSEC clue.

Not sure what this was up to.

-Peter