Re: RIPE handles delay

["Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <]

  Dear Vesa!

=> response to updates more directly related to the RIPE DB intended purpose
=> while still ensuring that others not so directly related will get
=> processed.
=
=This tactful comment probably means a turn to the right direction.
=But I wish it was said loudly and clearly, maybe even as a complete
=change in DB usage policy. We pay for address registration services,
=please take the domain (non-rev-dns-related) objects elsewhere.

  To statr with I'd like to assure you that we are (sometimes painfully)
  aware of the issue(s) you'r point fingers at.
  
  Quite a bit of things have been achived already to allow us to move in
  the right direction in due time:
  
  Technically:  the NCC already has implemented the WG-approved refer:
                attribute to allow referrals to "remote" autoritative
                servers for domain: objects. This is already being use by
                (a few) TLD registries, others are working towards that
                end.
	       
  Logistics:    CENTR was formed within the framework of the RIPE NCC
                quite a while ago to deal with TLD activites (or DNS
                issues in general).
                CENTR has meanwhile been incoprorated as a legal entity of
                it's own, and moved office to the UK.
                
  RIPE discussions: we have already (recently) started to discuss 
                (both informally amongst the WG chairs, as well as within
                the various WG meetings) the issues with co-locating
                different registries within a single database environment 
                (i.e. the IP-Registry, Routing-Registry, DNS-Registry).
                These issues are (amongst others)
                . authority for data and responsibility for data quality
                . access patterns
                  ie.e. (updates vs. consumers, privacy, copyright)
                . providing operational resources
                
  As an aside, you are correct in stating that the NCC's main objective
  rests with the IP-Address, including reverseDNS and Routing Registry
  activites.
  But, at the same time, the creation of and support for CENTR and the
  DNS-related activites was agreed by the RIPE community and there
  was (still is?) a contract in place between the NCC and CENTR to have
  CENTR contribute equitably to the NCC's operational costs.
  
  I'm looking forward to continue this thread of discussion (within the
  DB-WG framework or somewhere else) as well as to corrections and 
  amendments by the RIPE community and WG chairs, and/or from NCC staff.
  
  Best regards,
  and thanks for bringing this up (again) for consideration!
  Wilfried Woeber
  DataBase WG chair.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Wilfried Woeber                :  e-mail: Woeber@localhost
  Computer Center - ACOnet       :  Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
  Vienna University              :  Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
  Universitaetsstrasse 7         :  RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144
  A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe :  PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369
 __________________________________________________________________________