Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Tier-1 Performance/Availability

[Otmar Lendl lendl@localhost]

On 2008/04/30 22:04, Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs@localhost wrote:
> 
> A way forward MIGHT be along the lines of what John wrote here:
> 
> 
> 	(1) It is fine to encourage RIPE NCC to make periodic
> 	checks of server configuration and accessibility.  If
> 	the results of those checks are not satisfactory, the
> 	delegated party should be notified and ask to fix things.
> 	
> 	(2) If the delegated party does not respond, it would be
> 	fine for RIPE NCC to notify the entity that requested
> 	and/or signed off on the delegation and make sure they
> 	are aware of the problem and its implications to
> 	accessibility and usability of the domain they
> 	requested.    We have that contact information; using it
> 	doesn't need to involve the ITU.

In theory, this is fine. There are gotchas, though:

The parties mentioned with "entity that requested and/or signed off" can
differ, and the RIPE NCC only know who requested the delegation. As the
"signing off" happens through the ITU channels, RIPE NCC cannot contact
that party, as they are unknown to the RIPE NCC.

As in (2) from above the "delegated party" can be identical to
the "entity that requested the delegation", the fallback needs to
go to the "entity that signed off" which is unknown to the RIPE NCC.

We don't have that contact information, thus we need to involve the ITU
in such a case.

I don't like it either, but I see no way around it.

Of course, RIPE cannot demand any specific action from the ITU. 

My suggestion is to simply ask the ITU to relay the same message that
RIPE NCC sent to the domain owner to the national regulatory office.

/ol
-- 
// Otmar Lendl lendl@localhost, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933
// nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H
// http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg