Paul Ebersman <list-ksk-rollover@dragon.net> wrote: msj> o I mostly agree with this, and would totally agree if we were msj> completely 5011 based, but that's not the case. I think there needs msj> to be an "interested parties" announcement even if this isn't msj> announced widely. E.g. ISPs that do manual configuration on msj> roll-their-own DNS resolvers etc. salz> If you pre-announce to interested parties, then you are not helping salz> those parties learn how to handle unannounced emergencies. > It is not the IETF's job to tell large ISP that they must do 5011. We > need to consider that the world will never be all 5011 and that > alternate automation methods are valid and how we'd address that in an > emergency. I don't really understand the long-term reasons for not doing 5011. Can you explain this further? I understand short-to-medium term "software not ready" issues, but not long-term resistence to 5011. [Can ISPs still use HOSTS.TXT ?] -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-