Hello, I just have a very small comment and I'm curious about something: 1) In: 3.6.2 Sample “x.root-servers.org” Web Page The candidate operator SHOULD demonstrate their ability to maintain a <LETTER>.root-servers.org web page by providing a mock-up in HTML. I think it's a good idea to add one more sentence with something like: ".... " "<LETTER>.root-servers.org or whatever other naming architecture appears. My rationale is that in the future there is chance of root-servers.org to change, right? 2) Is it fair to ask the operator to keep up to date their software and be willing to adapt to new changes?. I think it's not mention in the document (sorry if it's and I missed it). For example something like this might happen: suppose the operator have an OS that does not support IDN?, or firewalls that refuses EDNS or AAAAs? Regards, Alejandro, El 9/6/2016 a las 4:42 PM, Andrew Mcconachie escribió:
Dear RSSAC Caucus,
On behalf of the work party for RSSAC Workshop 2 Statement 4, attached please find /Key Technical Elements of Potential Root Operators/.
This work party first met on June 23, 2016 and roughly every other week thereafter. For more information on the creation of this work party, please see the section on /Evolution/ from the /Report from the 2nd RSSAC Workshop/.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-workshop-26jun16-en.pdf
The work party invites you to review this document and provide your feedback by close of business *4 October 2016*.
Feedback should be sent to the RSSAC Caucus list directly.
There will also be two teleconferences held to discuss this document and capture feedback. Doodle polls for exact times forthcoming. *September 15th* *September 22nd*
Thanks, Andrew
_______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus