|
|
 |
Re: [enum-wg] DNSMON for enum zones
-
From: Patrik Fältström paf@localhost
-
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:08:28 +0300
-
Authentication-results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=paf@localhost dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
-
Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=856; t=1178798915; x=1179662915; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@localhost z=From:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20paf@localhost |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[enum-wg]=20DNSMON=20for=20enum=20zones |Sender:=20; bh=58lzzuNfYcBd8ogK+zEk3LDiB34dWMwPGW+6t3LY//8=; b=gnHiBeZAEeFWq6+72yaMf5DlEWdzHulUpWL9+6zzDOAeHTIsATVlh7YS4ugz2IY9m+pEfGzi 6YTJx58QHLNx7um8p0pbqqJXBfuN4saytkL2cYX4R2zS1tgJUSaJ2TJ2;
I see a number of different questions being discussed here, and I
think we should try to separate them:
1. RIPE NCC is running DNS for e164.arpa
2. RIPE NCC should "protect their skin" and monitor the e164.arpa
zone, so they can show their service is up to current standards
3. Registry operators run DNS for zones delegated from e164.arpa, and
the delegation itself should be of some quality for ENUM to work --
who has responsible for this?
4. Registry operators have interest in being monitored, should they
be monitored, or (via opt-in) on request?
5. If there is a need for monitoring of DNS operation, is RIPE-NCC to
do that monitoring (they already do in the case of dnsmon)?
One can probably slice and dice this in different ways and different
layers, but still, different questions. Mixed up, a mess.
Patrik
|
|
|
|
