A comment on technical theater requirements
In case it isn't obvious, I'm borrowing from "security theater" to make the phrase "technical theater", to focus on technical requirements of less actual utility and necessity than advertised. First, the IPv6 requirement.I draw attention to ARIN Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure. The proposal will allow exchange points and TLD registries provider independent v4 space for a period of three (3) years to enable the transition to v6. The v4 PI resource is then recovered and available for another critical infrastructure transitional allocation. We err in imposing v6, or in not allowing for dual-stack or transitional mechanisms, on applicants who's markets do not yet offer v6 capacity in a meaningful way. A pro forma "technical requirement" is technical theater, and detracts from the careful and constructive review of necessary technical capacity in applicants transitioning to delegation, and in their first operational years. This is a fixable error in the DAG, I hope it is fixed and not forced on applicants. Second, the DNSSEC requirement.For proposals in which we can reasonably assume that significant transactional value will be exchanged within a name space, signing the parent zone and its leaf nodes is prudent. Thus, any ".bank" should be signed.For proposals in which we can reasonably assume that little significant transactional value will be exchanged within a name space, signing the parent zone and its leaf nodes is with only nominal value. Thus, any ".museum" need not be signed.We err in imposing DNSSEC without distinguishing between applications for which it adds value, and applications for which it only adds theoretical value. This is a fixable error in the DAG, I hope it is fixed and not forced on applicants. Eric Brunner-Williams in an individual capacity |