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