[Dnssec-deployment] was Re: GI signatures expired

[Paul Hoffman]

On 1/3/11 10:36 AM, Dave Knight wrote:
>
> On 2011-01-03, at 12:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Jan 3 2011, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Why did you send this to the dnssec-deployment list?
>>
>> Because it might be of general interest? Do you think that (say) the OARC
>> mailing list would be more suitable for DNSSEC operational issues?
>>
>> I would think that issues relating to DNSSEC teething pains (and Afilias
>> are rather substantial contributors to the signed TLD count, so their
>> troubles could become everyone's troubles) might be considered to fall
>> under "deployment", but maybe list consensus is otherwise. Opinions
>> solicited.
>
> My opinion is that it's just good etiquette to try and report a problem to the operator first, save the naming and shaming for later if they somehow fail to satisfy.

Chris' original message was about a signature that was already expired. 
Thus, it's not "naming and shaming" as much as a warning to resolver 
operators *and* a note about deployment issues.