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