Based on the current architecture, BGP/Anycast is still the core technology to extend the DNS root servers. So I think RPKI is a good basis to guarantee the legal relationship between the AS and IP used by the root server. But the potential operator may not have it's own AS/IP space (for example it relies on other ISP) and can not decide to adopt RPKI. 2016-09-12 YAN Zhiwei 发件人： Terry Manderson 发送时间： 2016-09-12 13:09:50 收件人： Russ Mundy 抄送： rssac-caucus@icann.org 主题： Re: [rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: Elements of Potential Root Operators Hi Russ,
On 12 Sep 2016, at 2:44 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
Hi Terry, Duane (& others following this thread)
I’ve followed the discussion about the RIR, RPKI & ROA and find the text that Terry’s comfortable with to be rather confusing since I really don’t have any idea what the phrase “maintain a watching brief on the use of …” is trying to get at?
In which case I'm also comfortable to omit the sentence completely. Therefore the text would be: 'The candidate operator’s address space SHOULD be registered in one of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) public databases. The candidate SHOULD have entries in relevant public routing registries."
Terry, it sounds from your earlier posts that you don’t think that use of ROAs & RPKI should be a SHOULD/RECOMMENDED but I don’t think your current suggestion says that. Would you clarify what you intended with the wording? As above. Cheers Terry
rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus