Dear Colleagues, That would help to have your view on the following question (see below for additional information about the context of that question): Would you see any problem for the root zone to be signed from a technical point of view ? YES [] NO [] Kindest regard, --- Olivier Guillard ccNSO IANA WG Chair http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ianawg.htm ADDITIONAL NOTE: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The ccNSO Council asked the IANA ccNSO Working Group for guidance with regard to DNSSEC: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/minutes/ccnsominutes31jul07.pdf "The IANA Working Group is asked for help in providing input to the Council on Root Zone signing from a technical perspective." A ccTLD paper was drafted to start to respond to this demand, and was presented over the last ICANN meeting in New Delhi: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-iana-wg-dnssec-paper-04feb08.pdf Over the last CENTR GA in Greece, a report was provided about CENTR tech group activities: http://tinyurl.com/6bfby8 It was reported about general discussions concerning DNSSEC that took place across the CENTR tech community. Considering that some TLD operators had asked for the root zone to be signed, I asked him if there would be any problem for the CENTR tech if the root was signed, in particular for those TLDs that hadn't signed their zone. The response was: "NO", there is no problem for the root to be signed". The same question was then posted in the CENTR tech mailing list, and there were no objection collected for the root to be signed. Couple of explicit responses were posted from some ccs that said that, from a technical point of view, and as unsigned ccs, they wouldn't see any problem for the root to be signed. That would help to have input from other ccs. Kindest regards, -- Olivier Guillard ccNSO IANA WG Chair