|
|
 |
Re: [dns-wg] [Fwd: [centr-fm] Re: IANA TLD delegation issue]
-
To: Kim Davies <>, <>
-
From: Patrik Fältström <>
-
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:23:04 +0200
Olivier, can you please, if not done so earlier, please send this for
publication as an I-D.
Patrik
On Jun 6, 2005, at 15:39, Kim Davies wrote:
Dear all,
Olivier Guillard of AFNIC has described in the attached document
the details of their attempts to redelegate their domains. It is a
useful summary of the issue as they experienced it.
kim
--
Kim Davies, Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries
Avenue Louise 327, B-1050 Brussels; Tel. +32 2 627 5550
From: Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@localhost
Date: June 6, 2005 14:53:21 GMT+02:00
To: Marcel Schneider schneide@localhost
Cc: fm@localhost
Subject: [centr-fm] Re: [centr-ga] FWD: IANA TLD delegation issue
Marcel and colleagues,
as the AFNIC multinamming story with IANA was quoted
within exchanges, we felt necessary to provide the
community with a report to clarify what happened.
Find it here included.
As there is no standard format to communicate over
the TLD community this kind of reports, I have
choosen the RFC one. It is not designed for this
kind of communications, but I felt that it was the
less unappropriate to use (-> it does exist and it
is known by ccTLDs).
This is a raw draft: I would higly appreciate
*ANY* suggestions and inputs.
This issue will be discussed over the next CENTR GA
in Trondheim:
http://www.centr.org/docs/2005/05/centr-ga26-agenda.pdf
Best regards,
le vendredi 13 mai ā 15 H 58 , Marcel Schneider a ecrit :
Since this is a real technical concern to us all. Propose
we ask IANA to clarify.
Marcel
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:50:00 +0100
From: Jim Reid jim@localhost
Subject: [dns-wg] IANA TLD delegation issue
Here is a copy of the mail that has just been sent to IANA in
followup
to the discussion during last week's RIPE meeting. My thanks to those
who have helped draft this message so promptly. I will keep the WG
informed of developments.
Dear Colleagues,
This note follows a discussion at the DNS Working Group during last
week's RIPE meeting. Doug was unable to take part in this discussion
because he was called away early. Therefore we have sent you this
message so that we can clear up any possible misunderstandings and
hopefully avoid invoking more formal mechanisms.
The RIPE DNS Working Group is concerned about some aspects of the
current practice regarding IANA TLD operations. In particular the
problems encountered by AFNIC last month are unsettling.
It is our understanding that IANA has recently stopped accepting
certain updates to the DNS root zone. The current practice now
appears
to require each particular network address used in glue address
RRs to
have one unique DNS name. This requirement is new: multiple names
already exist in the root zone for some name server addresses. There
is no technical reason in the DNS protocols preventing this practice.
Important technical and operational goals can require TLD
operators to
use different names for the same address. The most obvious of
these is
more efficient name compression to make room for additional data in
responses. Multiple names for the same address can reduce the amount
of co-ordination required in case of name server address changes.
We do not understand why this requirement has been introduced or the
process by which it was agreed. The RIPE DNS Working Group is
disappointed that this change appears to have been carried out by
IANA
without prior consultation or discussion. We would like to know
rationale for this policy and the mechanism which led to its
introduction. We'd appreciate any clarifications from you before
Friday,
May 20th.
Regards
.....
chairs RIPE DNS WG
------- End of Forwarded Message
--
Olivier
<draft-guillard-multi-naming.txt>
<draft-guillard-multi-naming.html>
|
|
|
|
