Re: [enum-wg] 9.3.e164.arpa down

[Jim Reid jim@localhost]

On Nov 16, 2006, at 20:22, Michael Haberler wrote:

> I dont think I need to write a paper on good DNS practice because of
> that incident. The errors made in the case in question do not  
> require that.
I'm sorry you feel that way Michael.

> We need to tell these guys to get a life, network diversity and some
> clue before having a delegation, and be done.
Spot the contradiction. You don't want to help produce something  
documenting good DNS practice but you want the guys who have made  
mistakes to be told how to run DNS properly. I see. Ho hum.
> All I want I demand that current best practice be obeyed on  
> delegations,
I want a pony for Xmas.

There is no "best practice for delegations". At least not one that's  
documented. And you don't want to help produce that document. Not  
that this document could be forced on Tier-1 operators anyway.
> Get real, guys - dont tell me we cant do anything here,
Nobody's saying that Michael. You rejected the invitation to help  
produce a document. Generating papers and drafts is the usual way of  
getting WGs to operate. So if you don't want to go down that path, I  
suggest you quietly go away. Demanding ENUM delegations obey best  
current practice is all very well but if you won't help define that  
BCP, you're not being constructive.
You've already said you'll make changes to your SIP configurations.  
If that's the way you want to proceed, go right ahead. But please  
don't come back here whining about lame delegations. At least not  
until there's a BCP that's actually been agreed and implemented by  
all concerned. Like anyone else, you would of course be welcome to  
contribute to the production of this BCP if the WG takes on that work  
item.