Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft transition plan V2.2
Hi, Marika, Thanks, please find my comments attached. -- Brenden --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Post Doctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please find attached for your review version 2.2. of the draft transition plan. Note that in this version:
- All redline changes from the previous version have been accepted to facilitate review of the new content. - As previously indicated, staff has provided proposed language for sections III.A.1.4.1, III.A.1.4.2 and III.A.1.4.3. Note that we have organised this content using the following approach: 1) Describe background / current state, 2) Describe the issues identified as a result of the transition and rationale for changes, if any, to address the issues identified, 3) Current language / requirements and proposed revised language / requirements. The CWG may want to consider whether it would be helpful if the Design Teams would follow a similar approach as they develop their proposed content for the draft transition proposal as it will facilitate consistency across the document as well as guide DT’s with regard to the information that is expected to be provided by the DT. - A proposed appendix A has been added which outlines the proposed changes to the current requirements for DNSSEC in the Authoritative Root Zone.
We note that comments have been submitted by Andrew in relation to sections I and II. Staff is reviewing these comments and will aim to incorporate these in the next iteration of the draft proposal, unless there are any concerns or comments with regard to the proposed changes (if so, please share those with the mailing list).
To facilitate your review, I’ve attached both a clean and redline version.
Best regards,
Marika
Thanks, Brenden, much appreciated. We'll try to address your comments in the next iteration of the proposal. Of course, if anyone has any input on the comments made by Brenden or any other issues to raise, please share those with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika From: Brenden Kuerbis <bnkuerbi@syr.edu<mailto:bnkuerbi@syr.edu>> Date: Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:09 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft transition plan V2.2 Hi, Marika, Thanks, please find my comments attached. -- Brenden --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Post Doctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/> <http://internetgovernance.org> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find attached for your review version 2.2. of the draft transition plan. Note that in this version: * All redline changes from the previous version have been accepted to facilitate review of the new content. * As previously indicated, staff has provided proposed language for sections III.A.1.4.1, III.A.1.4.2 and III.A.1.4.3. Note that we have organised this content using the following approach: 1) Describe background / current state, 2) Describe the issues identified as a result of the transition and rationale for changes, if any, to address the issues identified, 3) Current language / requirements and proposed revised language / requirements. The CWG may want to consider whether it would be helpful if the Design Teams would follow a similar approach as they develop their proposed content for the draft transition proposal as it will facilitate consistency across the document as well as guide DT's with regard to the information that is expected to be provided by the DT. * A proposed appendix A has been added which outlines the proposed changes to the current requirements for DNSSEC in the Authoritative Root Zone. We note that comments have been submitted by Andrew in relation to sections I and II. Staff is reviewing these comments and will aim to incorporate these in the next iteration of the draft proposal, unless there are any concerns or comments with regard to the proposed changes (if so, please share those with the mailing list). To facilitate your review, I've attached both a clean and redline version. Best regards, Marika
participants (2)
-
Brenden Kuerbis -
Marika Konings