Re: Last WG call for draft-ietf-dnsop-root-opreq-02.txt.

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> We already have the document saying that such a communications channel is a 
> MUST requirement.
> 
> If we want the document to require a cryptographically secured non-DNS 
> channel for verifying the content of a root zone file, and the only one we 
> can think of at the moment is signed email with preverified keys, we'd 
> better make sure the document says exactly that.
> 
> If we don't want the document to require that, we'd better put in language 
> that says that this isn't required.

the document makes the leap of presuming the root server operators are
competent operations folk.  it mandates that they have an oob channel by
which they can verify the content of the file.  there are many possible
and reasonable ways to do this.  mandating which one would be ephemeral
and unnecessary.

randy