Re: [enum-wg] Italian Nameservers for 9.3.164.arpa. dead?

[Jim Reid jim@localhost]

On Jan 21, 2008, at 16:55, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> Would Ripe have the possibility to (temporarly) remove the  
> delegation, if such situations occur?
Personally speaking, I think this a very bad idea. It makes some sort  
of sense from a technical and operational perspective. But it's the  
start of a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what criteria  
justify pulling a delegation? And why only for e164.arpa? IIUC, the  
RIRs don't yank the delegations for reverse zones that have broken  
DNS. And IANA doesn't do this for TLDs that have lame delegations or  
dead name servers.
I also think it's extremely unwise to involve the NCC in any sort of  
subjective or qualitative decisions about the contents of e164.arpa.  
This touches on prickly topics like National Sovereignty that are  
best avoided. IMO the NCC should stick to the remit that's documented  
in the exchanges of letters between IAB, ITU and the NCC. In other  
words, it pretty much just does what the ITU asks them to do. :-)
As John says, a mechanism could be developed to notify a Tier-1  
registry (and ITU?) about a broken ENUM delegation. But this is  
probably a discussion for the Powers That Be. It wouldn't hurt I  
suppose for this WG to suggest a suitable mechanism. Any volunteers?
BTW, does anyone ask Verisign to pull the plug on lamedelegation.com  
(say) because its broken delegation is causing operational problems  
for their mail server? If not, why is a different approach necessary  
in e164.arpa for ENUM-aware SIP servers?