Re: Deletion of .de domain objects
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:45:50 +0200
- Organization: RIPE NCC
[note local-ir is chopped from cc:]
Jens Huenerberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Michael Holzt wrote:
>
> > I just got response from the denic regarding my questions about future
> > updates to handles. [...]
>
> We would really like to act supportive - but somehow it came we cannot.
> Noone asked or told us by time. There was no information available in
> advance and the update session itself was a whole mess. Handles have been
> changed to mnt-by: DENIC-P even if we have had them protected with our mnt
> object just a day before. Even better, the corrected address data has also
> been changed. The reason for this was the use of a two or more days old
> data backup as a basis for the updates. This leads to a well known
> problem: lost updates. Great deal.
>
> Interestingly, at least some of these overwritten updates came back later.
> Furthermore, I cannot understand the rules which have been applied to the
> importer of the DENIC database. Which data is now there? Yesterday's RIPE
> data? One week before? With corrected updates? And so on....
Protection of unmaintained person objects referenced from *.de domains
was essential because the setup of DENIC database was planned to be done
in two phases: first moving domain objects, and then migrating
person/role objects.
Addition of DENIC-P maintainer prevented these person/role objects from
accidental deletion in the period between the two phases. This was done
as requested by DENIC and according to their policy. The reason this was
done by RIPE NCC and not by DENIC themselves was the RIPE Database
performance concerns. Unfortunately due to mistake some objects were
updated that were not needed to be. These objects were converted back
and the apologies were sent.
>
> A strategy that prevents small providers from self-managing "their"
> domains is inacceptable for us, as well. Stupid enough, that only DENIC
> members can modify or register domain names. Now, all information should
> be unchangeable for others than them? Why?
>
> In other countries and the internet as a whole, decentralization means
> deregulation. Maybe, that it is needed that .de domains and data has to
> leave the RIPE's main database. But does this also mean that handling has
> to be different or principalized? I say no.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Dipl.-Inform. Jens H|nerberg T: +49-30-39909070
> Logivision GmbH F: +49-30-39909079
> Alt-Moabit 96c E: info@localhost
> 10559 Berlin W: www.logivision.de
> Germany
Best regards,
--
Andrei Robachevsky
DB Group Manager
RIPE NCC
