Sorry, this should have gone to DT-F. At 16/04/2015 10:01 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

1.

Milton has asked (several times) WHY we want to ensure that the IANA Functions Operator and Root Zone Maintainer must be separate entities. The answers I have heard to date do not (in my mind, or presumably Milton's) really explain why the two-party solution is better. With the current architecture, most or all errors that Verisign could catch would also be catchable in a single-party implementation.

Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios where the two-party solution is better.

2.

1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN IANA prior to the CWG proposal being submitted.

1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including within IANA) post transition.

I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort of implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did not refuse authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not clear that this is an urgent matter.

Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could be done prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016.

Do we want to keep it?

Alan