On Sun 2026-03-08 06:13:13-0400 Mohibul wrote:
My understanding from the discussion is that the goal is to keep the scope of this work narrow and focused. The intent is not to rewrite RSSAC001 or make broad editorial changes, but instead to concentrate only on deciding which service expectations should remain, be updated, or be removed. Minor editorial clean‑ups are acceptable, but any material or meaningful changes should be clearly identified, discussed openly, and agreed on by the caucus before moving forward.
Anyone who missed the call and watch the recording (it's only 16 minutes): https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/I3uN-zh4uuCFed4-aWQ8Tda4eZpFbIWrkpfIwKVL642v... I think your summary is mostly right, except for the minor editorial clean-ups part. Even editorial changes must meet the substancial/material qualification. They also updated the statement of work to specify that the primary audience is the Root Server Operators (RSOs), and directed us to revert back to the original version (RSSAC001v2) and start again. Examples given of acceptable changes were: - E3.1-B removed entirely. 'collective' requirements instead of RSO requirement - E3.2-B adding serving root-servers.net to zones served by RSOs - E3.2-D the acronym RZM was used without expansion - E3.6-A defining a publication period of one year (instead of time to time) All of those were changes but one were to the expectation text itself. The one change to the additional text after an expectation, expanding an acronym, was correcting an oversight. So I think the bar for editorial changes is pretty high. I actually would argue that the RZM change wouldn't qualify, because a RSO would know what RZM meant. So figuring out where the fine line is for editorial changes may be tricky. Regards, Robert USC Information Sciences Institute <http://www.isi.edu/> Networking and Cybersecurity Division