From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 3 10:17:23 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:17:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG Message-ID: <0FHH00L3I5P1CK@Salicet.ucd.ie> I'ld like to suggest some ideas in this area in advance of the WG meeting at RIPE 34. When we review the workplan, I expect we shall eliminate many work areas as no longer relevant, or better looked after now and in the future by CENTR. The residual work plan will be small. If it vanishes, then we have a clear direction. Your comments are welcome. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Sep 3 11:21:39 CEST 1999 --------- From jaap at nic.nl Fri Sep 3 11:24:07 1999 From: jaap at nic.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:24:07 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:17:23 +0100. <0FHH00L3I5P1CK@Salicet.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <199909030924.LAA82926@114046.kema.nl> Niall, I'ld like to suggest some ideas in this area in advance of the WG meeting at RIPE 34. When we review the workplan, I expect we shall eliminate many work areas as no longer relevant, or better looked after now and in the future by CENTR. I wasn't at ripe-33, and in the archives I can only find the ``Discussion document for review of TLD-WG workplan'' (http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/19990401-19990701/msg00004.html) and not the results of the review. So can you point me to the current workplan? TIA. jaap -------- Logged at Sun Sep 5 18:47:44 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Sun Sep 5 18:46:07 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 17:46:07 +0100 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG Message-ID: <0FHL00H0GINA44@Salicet.ucd.ie> On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:17:23 +0100 (BST), Niall O'Reilly wrote: I'ld like to suggest some ideas in this area in advance of the WG meeting at RIPE 34. When we review the workplan, I expect we shall eliminate many work areas as no longer relevant, or better looked after now and in the future by CENTR. The residual work plan will be small. If it vanishes, then we have a clear direction. Your comments are welcome. Niall O'Reilly On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:24:07 +0200, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: I wasn't at ripe-33, and in the archives I can only find the ``Discussion document for review of TLD-WG workplan'' (http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/19990401-19990701/msg00004.html) and not the results of the review. So can you point me to the current workplan? Jaap, no new edition of the workplan has been published since RIPE 33. I have prepared a discussion document for review of the workplan at RIPE 34 (see below). As mentioned there, six work areas have survived. Here are my comments on these, as a start to the debate. For purposes of argument, I'm taking the position of calling the raison d'etre of the WG into question and assuming that all of the work areas can be exported with advantage to other groups. IANA and ICANN CENTR is involved here. Complementary involvement may be appropriate, especially involvement in other DNSO constituencies than the ccTLD constituency. If so, we need to identify the motivation for such involvement. Stability of the DNS Root Those with operational interest (including CENTR) have interest here, and should work to protect it. Documentation and alignment of practices This work area overlaps with work which CENTR has under way. We don't need to duplicate it. DNS Infrastructure Resources We don't add value by shadowing DNS-WG. We should recognize that. Emerging Registries CENTR and DNS-WG can surely do more for emerging registries than we can. Tools and Techniques This is a new area, with no activity yet. We need to decide what it's for. I would like to have views from other people, especially those who either disagree with the idea of "exporting" the existing work areas, or would like to see other work areas in the work plan and feel that the RIPE TLD-WG is the appropriate group to deal with them. Niall O'Reilly [Begin DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34] Title: DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34 Date: 6 September 1999 Status: Discussion Document Next Review: RIPE-34, 22 September 1999 Discussion Document for next review of RIPE TLD-WG Workplan The TLD-WG workplan is an organic document that will be formally reviewed at each WG meeting. The workplan is listed under various sections followed by specific activities to be undertaken within each section. This document reflects revisions to the workplan proposed on 5 May 1999 at RIPE 33 in Vienna. Six work areas now remain. WG should consider at next review which of these need to be retained, and which should best be taken care of by other groups or organisations (eg: RIPE DNS-WG, CENTR, DNSO). WG should also consider whether it is appropriate to add any new work areas, and how the resulting (continued or new) work areas should be resourced. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Index IANA and ICANN DNS Infrastructure Resources Stability of the DNS Root Emerging Registries Documentation and alignment of Tools and Techniques practices -------------------------------------------------------------------- IANA and ICANN Priority: Highest Open Actions: None The independence and stability of IANA is vital for the functioning of the DNS. In order to help preserve this the following tasks need to be done: * Help support the following aims of IANA: o protection from litigation o recognition by official governmental bodies o bottom-up authority to IANA * Discuss and find a way for nTLDs to directly or indirectly fund IANA. * Formalise relationships with IANA within a bottom-up framework. * participation through DNSO structure or just leave this to registries ... ? * transfer of functions from IANA to ICANN * delegation relationship between IANA/ICANN and ccTLD registries -------------------------------------------------------------------- Stability of the DNS Root Priority: Highest Open Actions: None * desired responsibility for root server system * desired implementation of same -------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation and alignment of practices Priority: High Open Actions: None * Collect and publish information on status and current practice of nTLD registries, with particular reference to: o publication of policy, o national consultative framework, o registration procedures, o comparative charging, o search/retrieval facilities on nTLD databases, o availability of English-language versions of documentation, o domain name statistics, o national character sets, o Co-operation with Governments, o Competition, o Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, o Legal Issues. * Develop recommendations for best practice and alignment of practices. * Publish and promote any recommendations made. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DNS Infrastructure Resources Priority: High Open Actions: None * Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is to ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an avoidance of bottlenecks. * Track DNS technology and pilots of new features. * Avail of opportunities for co-operation with RIPE DNS-WG. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Registries Priority: High Open Actions: None * Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries within the RIPE area. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tools and Techniques Priority: High Open Actions: None * Maintain catalogue of useful tools and techniques -------------------------------------------------------------------- [End DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34] -------- Logged at Tue Sep 7 13:39:32 CEST 1999 --------- From jaap at nic.nl Tue Sep 7 13:41:58 1999 From: jaap at nic.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:41:58 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 05 Sep 1999 17:46:07 +0100. <0FHL00H0GINA44@Salicet.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <199909071141.NAA17367@114046.kema.nl> Niall, Thanks for bringing me up to date with the tld-wg and preparing the discussion document. I do agree with you that there is quite some overlap with work being carried out with by CENTRE and other groups make one wonder about the raison d'etre of the TLD-WG. jaap -------- Logged at Tue Sep 7 14:02:21 CEST 1999 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Tue Sep 7 14:02:04 1999 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:02:04 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from Jaap Akkerhuis of "Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:41:58 +0200." <199909071141.NAA17367@114046.kema.nl> References: <199909071141.NAA17367@114046.kema.nl> Message-ID: <27796.936705724@limmat.switch.ch> On Tuesday, 7 Sep 1999, Jaap Akkerhuis writes: Hi Jaap > I do agree with you that there is quite some overlap with work > being carried out with by CENTRE and other groups make one wonder > about the raison d'etre of the TLD-WG. The TLD-WG was created before CENTR. It still could be a forum for technical matters regarding DNS, e.g. secure DNS, WHOIS servers and clients, security, BIND stuff etc. but there is overlap with other WG's and CENTR as you notice. Therefore it might be that no specific TLD issues are left (well, maybe except technical management of a TLD name registry). CENTR is a club concerned with policies and politics. Having a technical group in addition _could_ be advantageous. This probably is what Niall would like to have discussed and an agenda if the RIPE TLD-WG stays alive. I think we should support him with these tasks. Marcel -------- Logged at Tue Sep 7 14:14:56 CEST 1999 --------- From fay at ripe.net Tue Sep 7 14:15:27 1999 From: fay at ripe.net (Fay Howard) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:15:27 +0100 Subject: CENTR employment opportunity Message-ID: <199909071214.NAA18961@nominet.org.uk> All, FYI: I attach in text format, a job advert for a Technical Project Oficer which has been posted to the new 'employment opportunities' page of CENTR's web site Fay Howard -------------- next part -------------- Council of European National Top level domain Registries Vacancy Technical Project Officer CENTR is a not for profit organisation created and funded by country code top level domain registries (ccTLDs) in Europe and beyond. CENTR's members manage the national Internet domain name registries for names registered under their two-letter code (.fr, .uk, .de etc) CENTR provides a forum to discuss matters of policy affecting ccTLDs and acts as channel of communication to Internet governing bodies and others involved in the Internet, promoting the interests of not-for-profit ccTLDs and lobby on their behalf. We also collect information and document the practices of ccTLDs and provide a focal point for enquiries on such matters, promoting and encouraging the provision of better services for users amongst ccTLDs world wide. We are looking for a Technical Project Officer to join the small secretariat team based in Oxford, UK. Reporting the General Manager, the primary duties will include: * Encouraging and facilitating cooperation and exchange of information between registries. * Organising technical workshops for registry staff and facilitating and contributing to working groups and projects. * Assisting in gathering and documenting information on registry policies and practices * Representing the organisation and giving presentations at international meetings and conferences. * Provide some technical support to the secretariat including the servers and the technical aspects of the Website. The function requires: * Education to degree level * Enthusiastic self-starter * Ability in UNIX and HTML with a good understanding of ICP/IP, DNS * A command of written and spoken English with an ability in a second European language an advantage. * Good communication and organisational skills The position offers a good salary and benefits package. Applicants are encouraged from all parts of Europe and assistance with relocation expenses will be given Information about CENTR can be found at http://www.centr.org or contact the General Manager, Fay Howard at the address below or email fay at centr.org. Applications should be sent to: CENTR Sandford Gate Sandy Lane West Oxford OX4 5LB TEL: +44 (0) 1865 332400 FAX: +44 (0) 1865 332401 From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Sep 9 10:46:30 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:46:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: (Fwd) Top 100 Maintainers List Message-ID: <0FHS004MGB1KDO@Salicet.ucd.ie> This message from the RIPE-NCC Database Group shows that a number of domain registries appear among the top-scoring maintainers of inconsistent objects in the RIPE Database. This is one aspect of the concerns which have been expressed regarding domain objects in the RIPE DB. Irrespective of the future of the TLD-WG, we need to identify how best to address these concerns and, in particular, this problem of inconsistent objects. Niall O'Reilly ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 17:45:54 +0200 From: RIPE Database Administration Subject: Top 100 Maintainers List To: db-wg at ripe.net, lir-wg at ripe.net, routing-wg at ripe.net Dear list members, This is biweekly report on inconsistent objects in the RIPE whois database. The first 100 maintainers are listed as a table below sorted according to number of their inconsistent objects in the database. The rest of the maintainers which have inconsistent objects can be found at http://www.ripe.net/db/state/mntnerreport1.html You can find further information about the Consistency Project at http://www.ripe.net/db/state/ Regards, RIPE NCC Database Group =============================================================== Maintainer no of name inconsistent objects 1 NL-DOMREG 51932 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NL-DOMREG.html 2 DENIC-P 34021 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DENIC-P.html 3 XLINK-MNT 30463 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/XLINK-MNT.html 4 DK-DOMREG 23138 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DK-DOMREG.html 5 AS1849-MNT 6033 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1849-MNT.html 6 FR-NIC-MNT 2818 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FR-NIC-MNT.html 7 ROKA-P 2446 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ROKA-P.html 8 DTAG-NIC 1966 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DTAG-NIC.html 9 SCHLUND-P 1524 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SCHLUND-P.html 10 BO-DOMREG 1320 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/BO-DOMREG.html 11 NACAMAR-NOC 1303 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NACAMAR-NOC.html 12 ECORE-NET 1287 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ECORE-NET.html 13 AS1717-MNT 1114 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1717-MNT.html 14 DENIC-N 1070 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DENIC-N.html 15 WWW-MNT 1009 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/WWW-MNT.html 16 DKNET-MNT 651 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DKNET-MNT.html 17 SEKTORNET-MNT 539 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SEKTORNET-MNT.html 18 INTERNET-NOC 534 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/INTERNET-NOC.html 19 NETTUNO 499 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NETTUNO.html 20 CSL-MNT 494 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/CSL-MNT.html 21 DK-NIC 494 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DK-NIC.html 22 DFN-NTFY 474 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DFN-NTFY.html 23 PSINET-UK-SYSADMIN 435 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/PSINET-UK-SYSADMIN.h 24 RAIN-TRANSPAC 385 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/RAIN-TRANSPAC.html 25 DIGITALWEB-MNT 375 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DIGITALWEB-MNT.html 26 NACAMAR-RES 372 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NACAMAR-RES.html 27 HIGHSPEED-DOM 367 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/HIGHSPEED-DOM.html 28 EU-IBM-NIC-MNT 360 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EU-IBM-NIC-MNT.html 29 SDT-NOC 354 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SDT-NOC.html 30 AS1267-MNT 352 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1267-MNT.html 31 AS5378-MNT 345 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5378-MNT.html 32 GLOBAL-MNT 343 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GLOBAL-MNT.html 33 AS6678-MNT 339 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS6678-MNT.html 34 ITNET-MNT 334 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ITNET-MNT.html 35 NACAMAR-POP 324 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NACAMAR-POP.html 36 TDK-MNT 299 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TDK-MNT.html 37 DE-VOSS 298 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DE-VOSS.html 38 IDNET-MNT 298 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IDNET-MNT.html 39 AT-DOM-MNT 288 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AT-DOM-MNT.html 40 KNIPP-NOC-MNT 259 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/KNIPP-NOC-MNT.html 41 IL-P 254 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IL-P.html 42 FR-EASYNET 248 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FR-EASYNET.html 43 RAK-NET 246 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/RAK-NET.html 44 INX-MNT 233 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/INX-MNT.html 45 MARIDAN-P 229 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MARIDAN-P.html 46 GIGABELL-MNT 223 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GIGABELL-MNT.html 47 EUROCONNECT 222 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EUROCONNECT.html 48 AS2120-MNT 211 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS2120-MNT.html 49 AS1899-MNT 207 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1899-MNT.html 50 IWAY-NOC 205 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IWAY-NOC.html 51 AS5617-MNT 197 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5617-MNT.html 52 AS3233-MNT 195 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS3233-MNT.html 53 IT-NIC 192 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IT-NIC.html 54 AS2529-MNT 189 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS2529-MNT.html 55 NDH-P 187 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NDH-P.html 56 NLNET-MNT 183 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NLNET-MNT.html 57 EU-IBM-NIC-MNT2 181 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EU-IBM-NIC-MNT2.html 58 FREENAME-NOC 179 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FREENAME-NOC.html 59 IBGNET 179 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IBGNET.html 60 OLEANE-NOC 175 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/OLEANE-NOC.html 61 ROM-MIKNET 158 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ROM-MIKNET.html 62 AS5427-MNT 156 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5427-MNT.html 63 TRMD-MNT 154 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TRMD-MNT.html 64 SL-CUS-MNT 153 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SL-CUS-MNT.html 65 EVOSYS-MNT 151 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EVOSYS-MNT.html 66 MBT-MNT 150 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MBT-MNT.html 67 AS1241-MNT 149 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1241-MNT.html 68 AS5551-MNT 135 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5551-MNT.html 69 AS2871-MNT 134 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS2871-MNT.html 70 NNCC 125 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NNCC.html 71 NETCOLOGNE-MNT 124 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NETCOLOGNE-MNT.html 72 OMNILINK-MNT 124 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/OMNILINK-MNT.html 73 ONE2ONE-MNT 121 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ONE2ONE-MNT.html 74 WESPE-MNT 117 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/WESPE-MNT.html 75 IMAGINET-NOC-MNT 115 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IMAGINET-NOC-MNT.htm 76 AS3292-MNT 112 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS3292-MNT.html 77 ROSNIIROS-MNT 108 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ROSNIIROS-MNT.html 78 ISB-MNT 107 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISB-MNT.html 79 ECRC-MNT 103 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ECRC-MNT.html 80 FO-DOMREG 100 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FO-DOMREG.html 81 TELIANET-LIR 100 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TELIANET-LIR.html 82 ISMA-MNT 98 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISMA-MNT.html 83 GARR-LIR 95 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GARR-LIR.html 84 SEICOM-MNT 93 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SEICOM-MNT.html 85 PROFI-MNT 92 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/PROFI-MNT.html 86 AS6721-MNT 87 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS6721-MNT.html 87 TINET-NOC 85 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TINET-NOC.html 88 XNC-MNT 84 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/XNC-MNT.html 89 AS8875-MNT 82 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS8875-MNT.html 90 ISTLD-MNT 82 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISTLD-MNT.html 91 TPNET 80 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TPNET.html 92 JIPS-NOSC 78 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/JIPS-NOSC.html 93 MDA-Z 78 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MDA-Z.html 94 PRHO-GUARDIAN 78 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/PRHO-GUARDIAN.html 95 ISAR-NIC 77 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISAR-NIC.html 96 INETWIRE-MNT 76 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/INETWIRE-MNT.html 97 GLOBAL-ONE 74 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GLOBAL-ONE.html 98 MAINT-AS3352 70 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MAINT-AS3352.html 99 JO-YN14 67 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/JO-YN14.html 100 WEB4YOU-MNT 66 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/WEB4YOU-MNT.html -------- Logged at Thu Sep 9 17:03:07 CEST 1999 --------- From jaap at nic.nl Thu Sep 9 17:05:37 1999 From: jaap at nic.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 17:05:37 +0200 Subject: (Fwd) Top 100 Maintainers List In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:46:30 +0100. <0FHS004MGB1KDO@Salicet.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <199909091505.RAA56342@114046.kema.nl> Hi Niall, Let me make some remarks about this. We probably should this dicuss in details this later at the meeting. This message from the RIPE-NCC Database Group shows that a number of domain registries appear among the top-scoring maintainers of inconsistent objects in the RIPE Database. Yeah, and we're the winner! And we could have done better :-). I'll discuss the situation further on. Irrespective of the future of the TLD-WG, we need to identify how best to address these concerns and, in particular, this problem of inconsistent objects. Let me start to raise some questions. Citating (probably incorrectly) Daniel Karrenberg, ``Ripe is in the IP-number business, not in the naming business''. Given that, one wonders whether domein name objects should be part of the Ripe database at all. Since Centr is now in de name business, I wonder whether control of this part of the database should not be adressed bij Centr. I also wonder what the added value is to have Ripe mirror the whois database for a ccTLD. If the ccTLD has a whois database it is the only authorative one. A pointer in the ripe database could be enough. ------------- The NL-DOMREG has apparently 51932 inconsistencies. Maybe this is a somewhat too detailed story, but on the other hand, it is a nice case-history of how these things go. Since I'm quite new in this position, I researched this a bit and apparently the next of events took place. In the beginning of RIPE's existence the NL-DOMREG feed, together with the SE-DOMREG feed, to Ripe's database was one of the better functioning ones. The form in which the objects were--and I believe, still are--send was slightly adapted so only relative global information was inserted in the Ripe database. For critical information such as admin-c and tech-c info was a pointer to the NL-DOMREG whois database. This was apparently done to prevent the data in the ripe database becoming stale. Since the update was/is done every workday, the chance of this hapening isn't big, but still more then zero. Another reason was protection of the objects. For a while was it possible that arbitrary persons, not necessarily part of the NL registry, could change .nl domain object. I've heard, that now this shouldn't be possible anymore. This went well for a while until Ripe changed the policies concerning the contents specification of the objects. The NL registry has asked for an adaption of these rules or the way the Ripe database can be manipulated. Since that time no updates have been done. There was also another problem. We have access controls on our whois database to limit the amount or completely block searches in the database to prevent data mining for commercial purposes. This didn't align with the Ripe policies at that time. Since that time no updates have been done for the Ripe database. Today we just handed out our 100.000nd domein registration, so about 50% of the .nl objects are not found in the ripe database at all. We are currently seeing around 7000 new domains each month, so this number is growing rapidly. The inconsistencies themselves are mainly caused by the old pseudo person ``see remarks'', which was/is the pointer to the nl regsitry whois server. Also, some joker apparently grabbed the ``not maintained'' object and changed it, causing for more disaster. Currently we are implementing a complete Domain Name Registration. With the design we have included the new Ripe update policies and we expect that we will refresh and update all the information as soon as this system comes in production. Regular updates will then resume. ----------------------- This is as far as I understand what happened with the .nl objects in the ripe database consulting various persons. I might have some details wrong. jaap -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 09:47:18 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 10 10:43:09 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:43:09 +0100 Subject: Action TLD-33.3 (HARMONIC and other registries) Message-ID: <0FHU00FLM2YG8J@Salicet.ucd.ie> TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. Philippe Renaud gave an excellent presentation at RIPE 33 on NIC-FR's directory system, HARMONIC. This allows registry data to be searched by geographical area, market (product or service) segment or company name, using natural language and is suggested as a means to 'take the heat out of naming'. HARMONIC is designed to integrate data from multiple registries in a single coherent query system. I understand that at least one other registry is interested in exploring use of this system, and that NIC-FR is eager to involve other registries. To explore, you can visit If your registry is interested in co-operating in this project, please let Philippe know, either directly or via the tld-wg list. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 09:50:28 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 10 10:46:21 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:46:21 +0100 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from Jaap Akkerhuis "of Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:41:58 +0200." <199909071141.NAA17367@114046.kema.nl> Message-ID: <0FHU00JBA33SDT@Salicet.ucd.ie> Thanks for your comments, Jaap. I would like to identify issues for which the TLD-WG could become a useful focus. Registry interests are well covered by CENTR. Perhaps registrars, ISP's, others involved in naming, but not represented in CENTR, have concerns for which this RIPE WG would be the place for discussion. Given such a new role for the WG, it would be appropriate to consider a new Workplan, changes in the Terms of Reference, (maybe even a new Chairman !). Niall On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:41:58, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > Niall, > > Thanks for bringing me up to date with the tld-wg and preparing > the discussion document. > > I do agree with you that there is quite some overlap with work > being carried out with by CENTRE and other groups make one wonder > about the raison d'etre of the TLD-WG. > > jaap > -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 09:52:07 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 10 10:47:58 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:47:58 +0100 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from Marcel Schneider "of Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:02:04 +0200." <27796.936705724@limmat.switch.ch> Message-ID: <0FHU00JDY36HDT@Salicet.ucd.ie> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:02:04 +0200, Marcel Schneider wrote: > It still could be a forum for technical matters regarding > DNS, e.g. secure DNS, WHOIS servers and clients, security, > BIND stuff etc. but there is overlap with other WG's and > CENTR as you notice. Therefore it might be that no specific > TLD issues are left (well, maybe except technical management > of a TLD name registry). The suggestions I've seen for the technical workshop which CENTR is organising in conjunction with RIPE 34 seem to indicated that CENTR is trying to develop a set of technical activities. It may indeed be that only registries (only registries are members of CENTR) need to be involved in TLD issues. Is there another view ? Niall -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 10:06:08 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 10 11:02:04 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:02:04 +0100 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from Marcel Schneider "of Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:02:04 +0200." <27796.936705724@limmat.switch.ch> Message-ID: <0FHU00JMH3TZDT@Salicet.ucd.ie> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:02:04 +0200, Marcel Schneider wrote: > On Tuesday, 7 Sep 1999, Jaap Akkerhuis writes: > > Hi Jaap > > > I do agree with you that there is quite some overlap with work > > being carried out with by CENTRE and other groups make one wonder > > about the raison d'etre of the TLD-WG. > > The TLD-WG was created before CENTR. May 1997 seems such a long time ago! The raison-d'etre for a TLD WG was so much clearer then. > ... > > CENTR is a club concerned with policies and politics. Having > a technical group in addition _could_ be advantageous. This > probably is what Niall would like to have discussed and an > agenda if the RIPE TLD-WG stays alive. I think we should > support him with these tasks. > CENTR is starting to develop its own line of technical activities. I expect that some of the policy recommendations it develops will relate to the technical work of the registries. It would probably be useful to try to identify areas to which CENTR is unlikely to give early attention (for reasons of resources, priority), but which are nevertheless of concern to the RIPE community. Thanks, Marcel, for your kind expression of support. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 10:47:45 CEST 1999 --------- From k13 at nikhef.nl Fri Sep 10 10:47:32 1999 From: k13 at nikhef.nl (Rob Blokzijl) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:47:32 +0200 Subject: (Fwd) Top 100 Maintainers List In-Reply-To: your message of Sep 9, 17:05 Message-ID: <9909100847.KA21773@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> Folks, +--- Start of included message from: Jaap Akkerhuis ----- | | Hi Niall, | | Let me make some remarks about this. We probably should this dicuss | in details this later at the meeting. | | This message from the RIPE-NCC Database Group shows that a | number of domain registries appear among the top-scoring | maintainers of inconsistent objects in the RIPE Database. | | Yeah, and we're the winner! And we could have done better :-). I'll | discuss the situation further on. | | Irrespective of the future of the TLD-WG, we need to identify | how best to address these concerns and, in particular, this | problem of inconsistent objects. | | Let me start to raise some questions. Citating (probably incorrectly) | Daniel Karrenberg, ``Ripe is in the IP-number business, not in the | naming business''. Given that, one wonders whether domein name | objects should be part of the Ripe database at all. Since Centr is | now in de name business, I wonder whether control of this part of | the database should not be adressed bij Centr. This has been brought to the attention of CENTR some time ago already. There are a few possibilities: + CENTR takes over this activity + RIPE NCC keeps on doing it, covered by an agreement with CENTR + forget about the whole thing It is one of the issues that CENTR should (and will) be discussing amongst themselves. Rob -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 17:03:10 CEST 1999 --------- From renaut at nic.fr Fri Sep 10 12:50:20 1999 From: renaut at nic.fr (renaut at nic.fr) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:50:20 +0100 Subject: HarmoNIC : progress report Message-ID: <199909101050.LAA02837@ziggy.nic.fr> Hi all, following Neil's mail on HarmoNIC, the NIC-FR's directory system, I can make a short progress report on it. This directory is currently operationnal in France in two languages at the following URL http://harmonic.nic.fr The news are : - it is being presented to a European Commission's call for proposal which should enable us to jump to 8 languages instead of two. - DENIC is in this project and will be using HarmoNIC directory too. These two news may help you to feel that this project is evolving nicely. A bi-country first phase of development can help getting rid of technical issues. It is still perfect momentum to try to create a harmonized European tool to offer to users a nice way of searching domains. So everyone which could be interested is welcome. Please let me know ! Philippe RENAUT AFNIC -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 09:29:01 CEST 1999 --------- From pi at complx.LF.net Sun Sep 12 23:20:13 1999 From: pi at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 23:20:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: <0FHU00JDY36HDT@Salicet.ucd.ie> from "Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie" at Sep 10, 1999 09:47:58 AM Message-ID: Hi! > It may indeed be that only registries (only registries are > members of CENTR) need to be involved in TLD issues. > > Is there another view ? Basically, if they come to common standards, then there's no need to intervene 8-) As we currently delegate domains from more than one country, some, ahem, standardisation might be useful. Currently, it's a mess with different rules, templates etc for each country with respect to almost everything. I'm not sure whether this deviation from common ground is obvious to the TLDs themselves, as they normally only deal with their own TLD 8-) -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 09:44:40 CEST 1999 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Mon Sep 13 09:44:32 1999 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:44:32 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from "Kurt Jaeger" of "Sun, 12 Sep 1999 23:20:13 +0200." References: Message-ID: <12090.937208672@limmat.switch.ch> On Sunday, 12 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: Hello >> It may indeed be that only registries (only registries are >> members of CENTR) need to be involved in TLD issues. >> >> Is there another view ? > Basically, if they come to common standards, then there's no > need to intervene 8-) > As we currently delegate domains from more than one country, > some, ahem, standardisation might be useful. Currently, it's a mess > with different rules, templates etc for each country with respect to almost > everything. Hope you are aware that the registrars under COM/NET /ORG are allowed to have different policies as well. Check out e.g. NSI's that from register.com and the one from Namesecure at http://www.namesecure.com/services/dispute_policy.cfm. You will find many differences. I'm not against harmonization but you may also be aware the most commonly used policy, the one from NSI, is considered a debacle, at least with respect to marks. Would it help if anybody would adopt something that is considered a flop ? > I'm not sure whether this deviation from common ground is obvious > to the TLDs themselves, as they normally only deal with their > own TLD 8-) We know quite well what's happening outside our territory, don't be afraid ;-). > -- > MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! > LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net > Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 > D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 > For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." Marcel Schneider at SWITCH -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 10:13:29 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Mon Sep 13 11:09:20 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:09:20 +0100 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from Marcel Schneider "of Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:44:32 +0200." <12090.937208672@limmat.switch.ch> Message-ID: <0FHZ00AMDO6B1W@Salicet.ucd.ie> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:44:32 +0200, Marcel Schneider wrote: > On Sunday, 12 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: > > Hello > [ ... ] > > Basically, if they come to common standards, then there's no > > need to intervene 8-) > > > As we currently delegate domains from more than one country, > > some, ahem, standardisation might be useful. Currently, it's a mess > > with different rules, templates etc for each country with respect to almost > > everything. > [ ... ] > > > I'm not sure whether this deviation from common ground is obvious > > to the TLDs themselves, as they normally only deal with their > > own TLD 8-) > > We know quite well what's happening outside our territory, don't > be afraid ;-). > Marcel, "outside our territory" indicates a perspective which is quite natural for a registry. Kurt's perspective is different, and one which I believe we registry people (although we understand it in principle) may not be sufficiently aware of. He is a customer of (or has to deal with) several registries. Maybe we can learn something useful from listening to how others see us. Kurt, would you like to say more ... ? Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 11:09:06 CEST 1999 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Mon Sep 13 11:08:58 1999 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:08:58 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie of "Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:09:20 +0100." <0FHZ00AMDO6B1W@Salicet.ucd.ie> References: <0FHZ00AMDO6B1W@Salicet.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <16492.937213738@limmat.switch.ch> On Monday, 13 Sep 1999, Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie writes: Hi Niall >> >> We know quite well what's happening outside our territory, don't >> be afraid ;-). >> > Marcel, "outside our territory" indicates a perspective which is > quite natural for a registry. Kurt's perspective is different, > and one which I believe we registry people (although we understand > it in principle) may not be sufficiently aware of. He is a > customer of (or has to deal with) several registries. I'm fully aware of that. We're in close contact with many registrars and have always been. And from my mail you may have noted that we also read other policies. > Maybe we can learn something useful from listening to how others > see us. Of course, no problem with that. > Kurt, would you like to say more ... ? Go ahead. > Niall O'Reilly Marcel -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 12:10:45 CEST 1999 --------- From pi at complx.LF.net Mon Sep 13 11:20:34 1999 From: pi at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:20:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: <12090.937208672@limmat.switch.ch> from "Marcel Schneider" at Sep 13, 1999 09:44:32 AM Message-ID: Hi! > >> It may indeed be that only registries (only registries are > >> members of CENTR) need to be involved in TLD issues. > >> Is there another view ? > > Basically, if they come to common standards, then there's no > > need to intervene 8-) > Hope you are aware that the registrars under COM/NET /ORG > are allowed to have different policies as well. I'm not only talking policies. Having a common standard on that level would be nice, but it's not the only issue. The technical/workflow part of the delegation process might be subject to "some" standardisation. Every registry has its own collection of templates, fields that *must* be filled, rules about SOA records/whatever. Modify-Requests, registering nameservers, deleting domains, all this is different for each country. > I'm not against harmonization but you may also be aware the > most commonly used policy, the one from NSI, is considered > a debacle, at least with respect to marks. Would it help > if anybody would adopt something that is considered a flop ? I not only find the policy of NSI sub-optimal, but also its whois response format (among other issues). > > I'm not sure whether this deviation from common ground is obvious > > to the TLDs themselves, as they normally only deal with their > > own TLD 8-) > We know quite well what's happening outside our territory, don't > be afraid ;-). Well, then ask yourself: how much different is your workflow, e.g. from the one from .at 8-) ? -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 13:33:36 CEST 1999 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Mon Sep 13 13:33:28 1999 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:33:28 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from "Kurt Jaeger" of "Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:20:34 +0200." References: Message-ID: <22333.937222408@limmat.switch.ch> On Monday, 13 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: Hello Kurt ... > Well, then ask yourself: how much different is your workflow, e.g. > from the one from .at 8-) ? What exactly is your point ? > -- > MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! > LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net > Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 > D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 > For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." Marcel -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 14:12:34 CEST 1999 --------- From pi at complx.LF.net Mon Sep 13 13:50:41 1999 From: pi at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:50:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: <22333.937222408@limmat.switch.ch> from "Marcel Schneider" at Sep 13, 1999 01:33:28 PM Message-ID: Hi! > > Well, then ask yourself: how much different is your workflow, e.g. > > from the one from .at 8-) ? > What exactly is your point ? The RIPE TLD-WG might try to get a standards discussion started for all technical interfaces into DNS registration: - whois query interface - template syntax - syntax checks on fields - Validity checks - Change/Modify interface in short, for every aspect required to automate as many tasks as possible for domain delegation. Here's an example: whois -h whois.nic.nl erco.nl gives: Rights restricted by copyright. See http://www.domain-registry.nl/dbcopyright.html Domain name: erco.nl Organisation: Erco Lighting Nederland B.V. Gooimeer 13 1411 DE Naarden Administrative Contact: R. Pieterman Phone: +31 35 6949900 E-mail: postmaster at erco.nl Technical Contact: Henry Moes Phone: +31 20 4952727 E-mail: domain-admin at nl.uu.net [...] The same query for erco.ch gives: domainname: erco.ch domaintype: A nserver: ns2.lf.net [212.9.160.1] nserver: ns2.pcom.de [194.25.152.9] nserver: ns.oberon.net [195.206.130.8] ownertype: O registered: 980828 changed: 990804 applicant: "Michael Schenk" org-name: ERCO Leuchten GmbH org-address: Brockhauser Weg 80-82 org-zipcode: D-58507 org-city: Luedenscheid org-country: Germany serialno: 00102139 source: CHDOMREG [...] Now the same query in the UK gives: Domain Name: ERCO.CO.UK Registered For: Erco Lighting Ltd Domain Registered By: WWS Registered on 27-Oct-1997. Record last updated on 27-Oct-1997 by simonh at web-services.co.uk. The same goes for templates for new/changed domains, billing formats, billing information ("hey, your domain is up for renewal") etc. While it might be interesting for you to write interfaces into those many different formats, it is not for me. If - this is not relevant to the TLD-WG, - or the discussion in the past showed this problem unsolvable, - or this should be handled by CENTR no problem with that, I'm just asking whether this might be interesting for TLD-WG, because @RIPE, ISPs are mostly presented and they have most of the problems with TLD-NICs. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 14:13:32 CEST 1999 --------- From BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu Mon Sep 13 14:51:00 1999 From: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:51 +0100 Subject: New TLD mailing list created Message-ID: <7792832848001022@etf.bg.ac.yu> Hello, Apologies for possible mutual copies of this message. Please, feel free to distribute this message worldwide, to other ccTLD representatives, not being subscribed to wwtld or tld-wg mailing lists. Following the iniative on the mailing list, backed by several people, a new mailing list, dedicated to TECHNICAL issues of ccTLD operation, has been created on the DNSO mailing list server. The idea is to separate technical details from general issues. The mailing list address is: . The mailing list is closed to the technical staff working with various ccTLD registries around the world (of course, admins are also welcome). If I receive no objections until this Friday, 17 Sep 1999, I'll add all current technical contacts from the NSI (InterNIC) Whois database automatically to the list. I would also suggest that someone from IANA (Bill Manning or Josh Elliott) be subscribed to this list. Should we also invite ISC (Paul Vixie) - his inputs might be extremely useful to all of us? For additions/removals to the list, contact . The scope of the list are discussions about various DNS software and their bugs (included crossposts from bugtraq related to the DNS), DNSSEC, whois implementations, tracking and ticketing systems, reports from root server administrators interesting for wide tech public etc. The list is NOT intended for non-technical issues (geographical diversity of Domain Council members, elections to SOs, government-TLD relationships etc.). Regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3218-350 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 14:47:26 CEST 1999 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Mon Sep 13 14:46:32 1999 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:46:32 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from "Kurt Jaeger" of "Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:50:41 +0200." References: Message-ID: <25433.937226792@limmat.switch.ch> On Monday, 13 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: Hello Kurt > The RIPE TLD-WG might try to get a standards discussion started for > all technical interfaces into DNS registration: > - whois query interface > - template syntax > - syntax checks on fields > - Validity checks > - Change/Modify interface > in short, for every aspect required to automate as many tasks as possible > for domain delegation. Since IMO all TLD's in the RIPE area use RIPE WHOIS your proposal makes sense. I do not fully understand these issues: > - syntax checks on fields > - Validity checks Do you mean checks implemented in WHOIS or checks implemented by the interface offered by the registry to you to enter WHOIS information ? > - Change/Modify interface What interface ? WHOIS uses an ASCII text based simple query mechanism to communicate with. See RFC-954. Where ist the interface here ? Are you suggesting one ? Marcel -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 16:26:08 CEST 1999 --------- From pi at complx.LF.net Mon Sep 13 15:04:15 1999 From: pi at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:04:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: <25433.937226792@limmat.switch.ch> from "Marcel Schneider" at Sep 13, 1999 02:46:32 PM Message-ID: Hi! > > The RIPE TLD-WG might try to get a standards discussion started for > > all technical interfaces into DNS registration: [...] > > in short, for every aspect required to automate as many tasks as possible > > for domain delegation. > Since IMO all TLD's in the RIPE area use RIPE WHOIS your proposal > makes sense. I do not fully understand these issues: > > - syntax checks on fields > > - Validity checks > Do you mean checks implemented in WHOIS or checks implemented > by the interface offered by the registry to you to enter > WHOIS information ? As I said (quote): "in short, for every aspect required to automate as many tasks as possible for domain delegation." This includes - template syntax - syntax checks on fields which also includes the syntax checked by the interface offered by the registry. > > - Change/Modify interface > > What interface ? WHOIS uses an ASCII text based simple query > mechanism to communicate with. See RFC-954. Where ist the interface > here ? Are you suggesting one ? I can modify .ch domains using the whois protocol ? That's news to me ? Currently, each registry has its own "domain registration/modify" interface (some web-based, some mail based, maybe some are already database based). Soon, PGP or GNU-PG as means for authentication will come into play. So, it's some to standardize, otherwise the RIPE members will have to "write code back and forth". -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 16:57:54 CEST 1999 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Mon Sep 13 16:57:46 1999 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:57:46 +0200 Subject: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG In-Reply-To: Message from "Kurt Jaeger" of "Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:04:15 +0200." References: Message-ID: <2191.937234666@limmat.switch.ch> On Monday, 13 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: ... > Currently, each registry has its own "domain registration/modify" > interface (some web-based, some mail based, maybe some are already > database based). > Soon, PGP or GNU-PG as means for authentication will come into > play. So, it's some to standardize, otherwise the RIPE members will > have to "write code back and forth". I start to understand that you are not talking about WHOIS but about some sort of registry-registrar protocol or maybe software. Is that correct ? If you're a CORE member you may present at RIPE-34 what you are doing. Or do you want RIPE members top develop a new one ? There ist the Registry- Registrar protocol currently developed by NSI with its testbed registrars and there is the SRS (Shared Registry System) proposed a while ago by CORE, but probably discontinued now. Hopefully we'll have Siegfried Langenbach at the RIPE meeting to learn more of the current status. Marcel -------- Logged at Tue Sep 14 15:04:36 CEST 1999 --------- From joao at ripe.net Tue Sep 14 15:03:42 1999 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:03:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RIPE handles delay In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990914143731.00a1cd60@mail2.nexus.org> Message-ID: Hi, we have been having a lot of trouble lately here at the NCC. Apart from some HW problems, that are now fixed, we are still receiving updates at a rate and in a combination that the DB can't presently handle in a fast way. All messages sent are queued and processed in turn. We are working on optimizing the software to handle these updates faster. Also we are going to deploy a queue control system to ensure a prompt response to updates more directly related to the RIPE DB intended purpose while still ensuring that others not so directly related will get processed. Currently we are processing the mails that were causing the problems with a lower priority to ensure an adequate service to the community. I will be presenting an in depth report on the situation next week at the RIPE meeting (DB wg). Shall the TLD wg also be interested in the some sort of presentation or overview I will be glad to present it. We have been reporting on the situation to this and other RIPE wgs and shall continue to do so. At this moment the situation is such that messages are being processed as in the good old days :-) Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE DB Group Manager RIPE NCC On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Alfredo E. Cotroneo wrote: > Hi, > > For the last ten days or so we have noticed that replies for a new contact > handle to auto-dbm at ripe.net is taking much more than the usual 2-5 minutes > as it used to be in the good old times ;-) Although we request only a few > handles per month, a relly from RIPE takes now 10-20 hrs or more in some > cases, regardless of the time (day or night, week or week-end) when the > request is sent out. > > I have heard of some kind of explanation related to SW/HW upgrades at RIPE > and huge requests of handles being queued by some provider a few days ago, > however, can someone at RIPE tell if the situation is going to be solved > soon and when ? > > Unfortunately this is causing at least an additional 1+ day delay in the > registration of new domains at the Italian NIC, as IT-NIC requests that a > handle exists for each contact before the domain registration form is > submitted. Of course any comment from IT-NIC on how they can modify their > internal procedures to minimize such delays (i.e. by IT-NIC requesting a > new handle to RIPE directly) is also welcome. > > Thanks. > > > -- > Alfredo E. Cotroneo PO Box 11028, 20110, Milano, Italy > Phone: +39-335-214-614 (try first) / +39-02-266-6971 > email: alfredo at nexus.org fax: +39-02-706-38151 > > -------- Logged at Tue Sep 14 17:22:17 CEST 1999 --------- From ruokonen at mail.teliafi.net Tue Sep 14 16:18:42 1999 From: ruokonen at mail.teliafi.net (Vesa Ruokonen) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:18:42 +0300 (EEST) Subject: RIPE handles delay In-Reply-To: from "Joao Luis Silva Damas" at Sep 14, 99 03:03:42 pm Message-ID: <199909141418.RAA09646@mail.teliafi.net> > From: Joao Luis Silva Damas > Apart from some HW problems, that are now fixed, we are still receiving > updates at a rate and in a combination that the DB can't presently handle ... > All messages sent are queued and processed in turn. This together with recent comments about domain objects in RIPE DB has started to worry me too. Our operation depends on RIPE's ability to register IP address assignments. Based on recent statistics it seems like we are suffering from reasons NOT related to addresses at all. http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-33/pres/db-update/sld008.html > Also we are going to deploy a queue control system to ensure a prompt > response to updates more directly related to the RIPE DB intended purpose > while still ensuring that others not so directly related will get > processed. This tactful comment probably means a turn to the right direction. But I wish it was said loudly and clearly, maybe even as a complete change in DB usage policy. We pay for address registration services, please take the domain (non-rev-dns-related) objects elsewhere. > We have been reporting on the situation to this and other RIPE wgs and Would it be possible to separate reverse DNS related domain objects from the big total of domain objects in RIPE DB report? > > handles per month, a relly from RIPE takes now 10-20 hrs or more in some > > cases, regardless of the time (day or night, week or week-end) when the ... > > Unfortunately this is causing at least an additional 1+ day delay in the > > registration of new domains at the Italian NIC, as IT-NIC requests that a > > handle exists for each contact before the domain registration form is -- Vesa Ruokonen - Internet Services, Telia Finland -------- Logged at Wed Sep 15 14:56:28 CEST 1999 --------- From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Wed Sep 15 13:40:49 1999 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:40:49 MET-DST Subject: RIPE handles delay Message-ID: <009DE308.626BE8E2.1@cc.univie.ac.at> Dear Vesa! => response to updates more directly related to the RIPE DB intended purpose => while still ensuring that others not so directly related will get => processed. = =This tactful comment probably means a turn to the right direction. =But I wish it was said loudly and clearly, maybe even as a complete =change in DB usage policy. We pay for address registration services, =please take the domain (non-rev-dns-related) objects elsewhere. To statr with I'd like to assure you that we are (sometimes painfully) aware of the issue(s) you'r point fingers at. Quite a bit of things have been achived already to allow us to move in the right direction in due time: Technically: the NCC already has implemented the WG-approved refer: attribute to allow referrals to "remote" autoritative servers for domain: objects. This is already being use by (a few) TLD registries, others are working towards that end. Logistics: CENTR was formed within the framework of the RIPE NCC quite a while ago to deal with TLD activites (or DNS issues in general). CENTR has meanwhile been incoprorated as a legal entity of it's own, and moved office to the UK. RIPE discussions: we have already (recently) started to discuss (both informally amongst the WG chairs, as well as within the various WG meetings) the issues with co-locating different registries within a single database environment (i.e. the IP-Registry, Routing-Registry, DNS-Registry). These issues are (amongst others) . authority for data and responsibility for data quality . access patterns ie.e. (updates vs. consumers, privacy, copyright) . providing operational resources As an aside, you are correct in stating that the NCC's main objective rests with the IP-Address, including reverseDNS and Routing Registry activites. But, at the same time, the creation of and support for CENTR and the DNS-related activites was agreed by the RIPE community and there was (still is?) a contract in place between the NCC and CENTR to have CENTR contribute equitably to the NCC's operational costs. I'm looking forward to continue this thread of discussion (within the DB-WG framework or somewhere else) as well as to corrections and amendments by the RIPE community and WG chairs, and/or from NCC staff. Best regards, and thanks for bringing this up (again) for consideration! Wilfried Woeber DataBase WG chair. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 __________________________________________________________________________ -------- Logged at Wed Sep 15 22:34:54 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed Sep 15 23:30:31 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:30:31 +0100 Subject: DRAFT Minutes RIPE 33 TLD WG Message-ID: <0FI4008BVBTUON@Salicet.ucd.ie> RIPE 33: DRAFT TLD-WG Minutes Place: Palais Auersperg, Vienna, Austria Date: 5 May 1999 Chair: Niall O'Reilly Scribe: Maldwyn Morris Participants: 33 ccTLD Registries represented: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia 2. Review Work plan 3. HarmoNIC Presentation by Philippe Renaut 4. CENTR Presentation by Fay Howard 5. ICANN/DNSO Presentation by Fay Howard 6. AOB 7. Conclusions 1. Administrivia 1.1 Recognition of Scribe Maldwyn Morris kindly volunteered to take notes of the meeting. 1.2 Approval of minutes from RIPE 32 No minutes from RIPE 32 ACTION 33.1 on Chair to ensure they are produced. 1.3 Agreement of Agenda The proposed agenda was agreed. 1.4 Review of Current Actions TLD-32.1 [Chair] Update Workplan Chair had recently posted workplan discussion document (http://www.ripe.net/???) to TLD-WG list. Most of those present had not yet seen this. Kept open. TLD-32.2 [Chair] Determine DNS-SEC plans and need for support from DNS-WG No registries have advised Chair of plans to implement DNS-SEC. A couple have indicated that guidance from DNS-WG would be welcome. One has indicated that preparatory study is in progress. Done TLD-32.3 [Chair] Advise DB-WG of number of registries planning to use RIPE whois code Nine registries are either using or considering using the code. Chair proposed new ACTION 33.2 on Chair to find out more about who is using RIPE database at RIPE NCC for domain objects. Done TLD-32.4 [Philippe Renaut] Present NIC-FR directory work at Vienna (Agenda item 3) Done TLD-32.5 [Mike Norris] Co-ordinate review of RIPE-152 Chair proposed to close as OBE. No disagreement from floor. Closed as OBE 2. Review Workplan Chair proposed to drop many sections and re-align others, as suggested in the discussion document, which he presented, as most present had not seen it. The following additional suggestions were made. o Split IANA and Stability of Root into two sections: IANA/ICANN and Root Stability. ICANN is now defined and supporting organizations are emerging. The inaugural meeting in Berlin will define them further. CENTR has helped define both the DNSO and the ccTLD area within DNSO. Fay said that Marcel Schneider had initiated an ICANN/TLD relations activity but this could be done by CENTR, not just Marcel. Root stability needs firmer plans. There should be no changes in Delegation without due process, and the DNSO was the forum for discussing this. o TLD coordination Project Activity. CENTR doesn't cover all TLD activities. Need task force to do TLD activities. The Chair proposed that task forces should be set up for specific TLD activities. Discussion on next steps was to be dealt with in Section 7 of this meeting. 3. HARMONIC: Directory Service of NIC.FR Presentation by Philippe Renaut Domain directory tool for all ccTLDs, initially working for .fr Enables users to find extra non-technical information not stored in the RIPE DB, such as Activities. Can search for Organizations by Postal Address, Activity, Sector. Can search for Domains by parts of name. Can search for web sites in .fr domain. It means users can search the net not by domain name, so this takes the pressure off domain names. Uses standardized address in address part of RIPE DB. Those interested are welcome to look: http://harmonic.nic.fr An no-image version will be developed. Other NICs are interested and it could become a global tool. An LDAP upper layer will be developed to standradise the information Philippe asked the permission of other ccTLDs to use their information in the system and suggested that they discuss it with him after the meeting. Philippe answered a number of questions from those present. Q: How is the information collected Philippe: Differs per country, but France's NIC collects the info for .fr Q: Who supplies the information ? Is it Official ? Philippe: Yes it is official. Some is from the RIPE Database, some is requested by the NIC when the domain is registered. Q: Who updates the info - Nic or the client ? Philippe: The client, but ISPs say they don't necessarily want to do it, so will allow both to do it. If clients don't want to appear, they don't have to. Q: Are updates handled automatically. Are they authenticated ? Philippe: Yes, Yes - with a password. Q: When is the Launch date ? Philippe: Already launched for .fr Q: What are the hit rates ? Philippe: 150 connections per day. 4. CENTR Update Presentation by Fay Howard. See http://www.centr.org. RIPE-CENTR Project is winding down. CENTR has elected a committee, has 23 intended member registries, is incorporated in UK following poll, locating in Oxford 7/6/99, looking for technical and admin officers. Fay Howard has been appointed General Manager. A technical workshop is planned in conjunction with RIPE-34. Gerhard Winkler mentioned possible technical work items for CENTR: o DNS secondary, structure, QOS, requirements o Whois DB - need or split from RIPE DB for domains ? o DNS SEC - need ?, how ? o Shared Registry system- how ?, need ? o How to run registry ? o Liaisons - ask other WGs o Share resources o Common Database structures Fay suggested that maybe RIPE NCC does not want to store domain names after CENTR is set up in Oxford. Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chairman, said that he had indicated that we need to think about this, but that that didn't mean that RIPE is unwilling to continue to support it. [ Coffee Break ] 5. ICANN/DNSO Update Presentation by Fay Howard. See http://www.icann.org. Fay mentioned CENTR participation in consensus-building, and the different DNSO-definition proposals known as the Paris, BMW, Singapore documents. She described the current DNSO Formation ideas, with Constituencies and General Assembly. and that Inaugural Meetings had been scheduled in Berlin later this month. Fay asked who was planning to go to Berlin and three people indicated that they were intending to go. 6. AOB o Relations with other WGs DB-WG had raised concern over domain objects in RIPE database. This was discussed earlier in the meeting when reviewing the action items. It was reported that at the moment only Switzerland and Liechtenstein were known to use to use Referral. o Status of this WG Rob Blokzijl said that the meeting should consider putting in the agenda for this WG at RIPE 34, when CENTR is settled, the question of how to proceed with this WG. Chair said this largely overlaps with Section 7 of this meeting's agenda, but that the WG should discuss this on the tld-wg at ripe.net mailing list. 7. Conclusions o Directions for the group Chair proposed ACTION on chair to seek discussion of the directions for the group on the lir/wg mailing list. Floor concurred. o Revisiting the Work plan Chair proposed ACTION on ALL to discuss this on the tld-wg at ripe.net mailing list. Floor concurred. The chair thanked all the participants, and meeting was closed. The following actions were outstanding for the working group at the end of the meeting. TLD-33.1 [Chair] Provide minutes for RIPE-32 TLD-WG. TLD-33.2 [Chair] Initiate discussion of issues arising around domain objects in RIPE database, including: the large number of domain objects in the RIPE DB, authority for these objects, quality of data in these objects, possibility of distributing data among several databases, single point of initial reference, control of access to the data, data privacy, and possible differences in policy among registries. These issues need to be discussed, next requirements determined, and corresponding resources identified. TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. TLD-33.4 [Chair] Place Future Direction of TLD-WG on Agenda for RIPE-34 and stimulate preparatory discussion on mailing list. TLD-33.5 [All] Contribute to workplan discussion on mailing list. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Wed Sep 15 22:36:08 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed Sep 15 23:30:54 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:30:54 +0100 Subject: PROPOSED Agenda RIPE 34 TLD WG Message-ID: <0FI400L2IBUHZB@Salicet.ucd.ie> TLD-WG session at RIPE 34: Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia o recognition of Scribe (volunteer needed) o agreement of Agenda o minutes from RIPE 33 o review of action list 2. Input from other RIPE WG's, if any 3. CENTR Report (Fay Howard) 4. Future Direction of TLD WG 5. Review Workplan Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. This review must take account of the conclusions reached under item 4, above. 6. AOB 7. Conclusions -------- Logged at Wed Sep 15 22:36:46 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed Sep 15 23:31:10 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:31:10 +0100 Subject: Status of TLD WG Actions Message-ID: <0FI4008C2BUXON@Salicet.ucd.ie> TLD-33.1 [Chair] Provide minutes for RIPE-32 TLD-WG. -- Still open: closure expected soon -- TLD-33.2 [Chair] Initiate discussion of issues arising around domain objects in RIPE database, including: the large number of domain objects in the RIPE DB, authority for these objects, quality of data in these objects, possibility of distributing data among several databases, single point of initial reference, control of access to the data, data privacy, and possible differences in policy among registries. These issues need to be discussed, next requirements determined, and corresponding resources identified. -- Open: discussion in progress between CENTR and RIPE-NCC -- TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. -- Open: some registries are already working with NIC-FR -- TLD-33.4 [Chair] Place Future Direction of TLD-WG on Agenda for RIPE-34 and stimulate preparatory discussion on mailing list. -- Done -- TLD-33.5 [All] Contribute to workplan discussion on mailing list. -- Open: some discussion has taken place -- -------- Logged at Thu Sep 23 21:00:20 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Sep 23 17:24:45 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:24:45 +0100 Subject: DRAFT Minutes RIPE 32 TLD WG Message-ID: <0FII00F0YO8TMP@Salicet.ucd.ie> I am now able to circulate draft minutes of the RIPE 32 TLD WG. This draft is for comment until 10 October 1999. In default of comment by then, this draft will become the official record of the meeting. Special thanks to Hans Niklasson, who took the notes. Niall O'Reilly DRAFT Minutes RIPE 32 TLD WG 1. Administrivia 1.1 Scribe: Hans Niklasson 1.2 Agenda: as drafted 2. Matters arising from RIPE 31 TLD-WG meeting 2.1 adoption of minutes RIPE 29 Only a summary was available. Wilfred Woeber proposed adoption of this as formal record; Mike Norris seconded. 2.2 adoption of minutes RIPE 30 Adoption of the minutes was proposed by Fay Howard 2.3 adoption of minutes RIPE 31 Adoption of the minutes was proposed by Daniel Karrenberg, seconded by Eva Froelich 2.3 review of action list TLD-31-1: Niall O'Reilly Finalise the minutes from the RIPE 29 meeting Completed (2.1 above) TLD-31-2: Niall O'Reilly Finalise the minutes from the RIPE 30 meeting Completed (2.2 above) TLD-31-3: Niall O'Reilly Obtain information on status of referral mechanism. Completed (4 below) 3. Review Workplan The group's workplan was found to need reorganisation, with merging if some sections. Chair agreed to prepare new draft for next meeting (Action: TLD-32.1). Activity relevant to the following particular work areas was noted. TLD Coordination Project Activity CENTR was expected to contines this as the successor to the RIPE CENTR project. Documentation and alignment of practices NIC-FR had developed a directory system. Philippe Renaud offered to demonstrate this at RIPE 33 (Action: TLD-32.4). DNS Infrastructure Resources DNS-WG was reported to be working on BCP document. Explicit reference to liaison with DNS-WG was needed in Workplan. DNSsec was expected in next version of BIND. Daniel Karrenberg offered to invite ISC presentation at next meeting if interest was sufficient. Chair undertook to make soundings on list (Action: TLD-32.2). 4. Whois referral feature Joao Luis Silva Damas gave a report on the database referral feature for domain names. Two ways to go, either leave it the way it is or another way to display. Four registries were believed to be using the RIPE whois and database code. Chair undertook to obtain firmer information (Action: TLD-32.3). It was agreed that the current implementation was just what was needed. 5. RIPE-CENTR Progress Fay Howard gave a report on current status of the RIPE CENTR Project. The creation of an independent CENTR organisation was under way, with an Executive Committee elected and incorporation expected shortly. This would allow the RIPE CENTR project to come to an end by 30 June 1999. 6. ICANN/DNSO Update Fay Howard reported developments to date in shaping of ICANN's Domain Names Supporting Organisation (DNSO), and described CENTR's position in this regard. CENTR was supporting ICANN, and was concerned to have continuity for ccTLD's and formalization of relationship between ccTLD's and ICANN. CENTR was participating in initative to form DNSO. A number of draft DNSO definitions had been proposed, including a draft from Ireland which had broad support from CENTR, but no consensus had yet emerged. Negotiations were continuing, most recently at and around a public meeting in Washington on 22 January and a closed meeting the day before. Negotiations were expected to continue in the near future, with ICANN pressing for conclusion by 5 February to allow a one-month notice period in advance of the Singapore ICANN meeting early in March. It was hoped to find ways for TLD-WG and CENTR to work together after resolution of the ICANN/DNSO issues and to maintain liason until then. 7. AOB Mike Norris suggested that it was timely to review the cocument RIPE-152, especially with regard to TLD registries, and agreed to co-ordinate this activity (Action: TLD-32.5). 8. Conclusions 8.1 revisit workplan priorities 8.2 summarize action list TLD-32.1 [Chair] Update Workplan TLD-32.2 [Chair] Determine DNS-SEC plans and need for support from DNS-WG TLD-32.3 [Chair] Advise DB-WG of number of registries planning to use RIPE whois code TLD-32.4 [Philippe Renaut] Present NIC-FR directory work at Vienna TLD-32.5 [Mike Norris] Co-ordinate review of RIPE-152 -- End -- -------- Logged at Fri Sep 24 12:11:36 CEST 1999 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 24 13:06:52 1999 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:06:52 +0100 Subject: RIPE 34 TLD WG: Meeting Summary Message-ID: <0FIK00D5O6Z38I@Salicet.ucd.ie> RIPE 34: TLD-WG Summary Place: Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Date: 22 September, 1999 Chair: Niall O'Reilly Scribe: Vesna Manojlovic Participants: 33 ccTLD Registries represented: 13 This short summary of the TLD-WG session was presented at the closing plenary session of RIPE 34. Please see the RIPE 34 TLD-WG Minutes (when available) for more detail. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Future of TLD WG The WG was closed. Now that CENTR is established, it appears to be the organisation which should best deal with most of the work areas belonging to the TLD WG. It is hoped that a CENTR working group will begin functioning soon and that it will meet at RIPE 35. Some work areas appear to fall more naturally to the continuing RIPE DNS WG. Work areas from the TLD-WG workplan were identified to be entrusted to DNS-WG and to CENTR, as shown below. DNS-WG: Stability of the DNS Root DNS Infrastructure Resources CENTR: IANA and ICANN Documentation and alignment of practices Emerging Registries Tools and Techniques ---------------------------------------------------------------- Input from other RIPE WG's DB-WG Input needed on specification of domain object for next revision of code. Operational difficulties around domain objects. Need decision on migration of domain objects -- CENTR to respond urgently. Specification input deferred until migration path decided. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CENTR Update Presentation by Fay Howard. CENTR has incorporated, is recruiting a Technical Project Officer, and is expected to have a technical programme, with its own working groups. CENTR is aware of problems wrt domain objects in RIPE DB and is in active dialogue with RIPE NCC. CENTR has had to concentrate on global ICANN and DNSO issues, and now expects to have a more "European" focus. Seven DNSO constituencies provisionally recognised, among which ccTLD constituency. ccTLD's have elected 3 NC members. Elections for ICANN Board follow in October. See http://www.centr.org. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Current Actions TLD-33.1 [Chair] Provide minutes for RIPE 32 TLD WG Draft ready; kept open; to be reviewed on list. TLD-33.2 [Chair] Initiate discussion of issues arising around domain objects in RIPE database. Some discussion has taken place between interested parties, especially RIPE-NCC, CENTR and certain registries. Transferred to CENTR, for decision during next week (beginning 27 September 1999). TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. NIC-FR is making contact directly. OBE; closed. TLD-33.4 [Chair] Place Future Direction of TLD-WG on Agenda for RIPE-34 and stimulate preparatory discussion on mailing list. Done; closed. TLD-33.5 [All] Contribute to workplan discussion on mailing list. OBE; closed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Actions TLD-34.1 [Chair] Ensure loose ends are tidied up, in particular by alerting inheritors of work areas and action items, and by taking care of minutes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the TLD WG and who has made it an interesting experience for me as Chairman. I would particularly like to thank Vesna and also her predecessors at earlier meetings for taking the meeting notes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Oct 5 00:00:53 CEST 1999 ---------