Dear RSSAC Caucus, A consortium of members from NLnet Labs and SIDN Labs has conducted a study in response to a recommendation in a report of the Root Zone Evaluation Committee (RZERC), namely RZERC002[1] recommendation 2, quoted here: Recommendation 2: The RZERC recommends that ICANN org further explore the cost / benefit tradeoffs and risks of signed root zone name server data. Do the risks of redirected query traffic outweigh the risks of increased operational complexity? This was an ICANN commissioned work. The report that is the result of that study is attached to this e-mail. Note that the same consortium also conducted the study that was called for in the first recommendation of RZERC002, to conduct the further studies called for in recommendation 2 of RSSAC028. Those further studies were to understand the current behavior of DNS resolvers and how each naming scheme discussed in the RSSAC028 document would affect these behaviors. We took on this study which resulted in the "RSSAC028 Implementation study report" which is published on the ICANN website here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac028-implementation-study-re... Since the "RSSAC028 Implementation study report" was in response to RSSAC028 (which was originally a Caucus product), and because "The reduced risk of redirected query traffic with signed root name server data" report is a follow-up study to this (concluding the recommendations of RZERC002), and because the root zone is of interest to the root server system, I am sharing this here on the RSSAC Caucus mailing-list. Kind regards, Willem Toorop on behalf of the responding to RZERC002 recommendation 2 consortium [1] https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/rzerc-002-en.pdf