Alejandro Acosta <alejandro@lacnic.net> writes:
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?
That makes sense to me and is a wise suggestion. I might pick "or other appropriate name" for simplicity.
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?
That's probably a good point too. 3.6.4 describes needing to be open and to participate, but does not ask them to agree to follow the current trends with respect to the distribution requirements itself. [note that I'm not sure the OS requiring IDN support is needed; we only care about the service as seen from the external point of view to the DNS server] -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI