From egoshin at ihep.su Wed Nov 1 19:50:04 1995 From: egoshin at ihep.su (Leonid A.Yegoshin) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 21:50:04 +0300 (GMT+3:00) Subject: DNS registration ? References: Message-ID: Hello, >From: "Alex V. Soldatov" > >How my organization stand in DNS registration? >Which sheet must be feel ? As long as you have UUCP connectivity your network provider perform all requered registrations. - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22 From Artur.Romao at puug.pt Fri Nov 3 18:20:43 1995 From: Artur.Romao at puug.pt (Artur Romao) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 18:20:43 +0100 (MET) Subject: A proposal from RIPE DNS Working Group Message-ID: <199511031720.AA02024@relay.puug.pt> Hello, > I'm glad to contact you, acting on request of the ripe dns working > group which, during the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam, discussed about > DNS failures and made a proposal as stated in the following excerpt > from the minutes: > > {...} > Some people do not watch their name servers: it happens that some name > servers are left unattended and fail without anyone noticing. This > has an impact on the performance and reliability of the overall name > service. > > People should watch their name servers and their zones on their primary > and secondaries. At least the 'host' command can be used with the '-C' > option to do this at regular intervals. > > During the plenary session someone remembered the existance of > RFC1713 A. Romao, "Tools for DNS debugging", which is usually > referred to as the guide for DNS administrators and suggested to ask > the author to include such recommendation. > > [ACTION on ABB] > {...} I was planning to write an updated version of the RFC some time next year (since it's also an FYI I'm supposed to update it regularly). Among other things I'm waiting for BIND-4.9.3 final to be released, and there seems to be a lot of new tools available, so I have to take a look at them. I appreciate your comments, they fit well in the new scheme I'm thinking about. Of course, if anyone has any other suggestions, they're very welcome, too. Thanks for your input. Regards, .artur -- ======== ____ ==== Artur Romao ======= / / / ___ ___ /_ ===== PUUG - EUnet Portugal ====== /---- / / / / /___/ / ====== Qta Torre 2825 Mte Caparica ===== /____ /___/ / / /___ /_ ======= http://www.Portugal.EU.net/ ==== ======== mailto:Artur.Romao at puug.pt From guyd at pipex.net Mon Nov 6 07:31:45 1995 From: guyd at pipex.net (Guy Davies) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 06:31:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire Message-ID: Hello again folks, Response to the questionnaire has, so far, been a bit disappointing. I have received only eight filled in questionnaires. To anyone who is delaying their response I would say, please return your filled in questionnaire as soon as possible so that the information can be quickly collated and prepared for publication. Despite some people's reservations to the usefulness of such a source of information, I consider it would be extremely useful as an initial reference. I take this position based on personal experience of trying to register domains in other countries and also of trying to help organise a useable 'NIC' system for the UK without any information or guidance from other countries' NICs. To those of you from whom I have received replies, thankyou again for spending the time. I hope to have something for publication in the next few weeks (providing I get some more replies quickly) and I will publish the URL to this group once the page is available. I look forward to your responses in the near future. Regards, Guy Davies tel: 01223 250122 ---------- fax: 01223 250121 Network Support Engineer email: guyd at pipex.net Unipalm PIPEX url: http://www.pipex.net 216 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 4WA From bonito at nis.garr.it Mon Nov 6 15:44:13 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 15:44:13 MET Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: ; from "Guy Davies" at Nov 6, 95 6:31 am Message-ID: <199511061444.PAA03098@re.nis.garr.it> Dear Guy, > Hello again folks, > > Response to the questionnaire has, so far, been a bit disappointing. I > have received only eight filled in questionnaires. You're right, but be patient. Despite I've promoted this initiative I've been too busy to be able to give a thoughtful answer. > To anyone who is delaying their response I would say, please return your > filled in questionnaire as soon as possible so that the information can > be quickly collated and prepared for publication. Despite some people's > reservations to the usefulness of such a source of information, I > consider it would be extremely useful as an initial reference. I take > this position based on personal experience of trying to register domains > in other countries and also of trying to help organise a useable 'NIC' > system for the UK without any information or guidance from other > countries' NICs. > > To those of you from whom I have received replies, thankyou again for > spending the time. I hope to have something for publication in the next > few weeks (providing I get some more replies quickly) and I will publish > the URL to this group once the page is available. As a conseguence of some reactions to the questionnaire I suggest to recirculate it with a clear statement that the results will be made available to the TLD administrators but will not be published. During the WG meeting it wasn't clearly decided to make this information accessible to everyone and, since there is somebody who does not like that, we have to be prudent. I suggest to ask RIPE-NCC to create a private repository to be used by an entity we can call "European TLD forum". > > I look forward to your responses in the near future. > > Regards, > > Guy Davies tel: 01223 250122 > ---------- fax: 01223 250121 > Network Support Engineer email: guyd at pipex.net > Unipalm PIPEX url: http://www.pipex.net > 216 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 4WA > -- ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- From panigl at cc.univie.ac.at Mon Nov 6 15:50:49 1995 From: panigl at cc.univie.ac.at (Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie +43 1 4065822-383) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 15:50:49 MET Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire Message-ID: <00998FE8.1BCB93C8.5@cc.univie.ac.at> >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 06:31:45 +0000 (GMT) >From: Guy Davies > >Response to the questionnaire has, so far, been a bit disappointing. I >have received only eight filled in questionnaires. Dear Guy, sorry for beeing late, we just finished our answers after circulating them through all involved people. You got the answers for AT a few minutes ago. Because of the fact that not all TLD registries were positively participating in this effort, we would strongly suggest, that only those parties who DID respond are getting the result. We are seeing the collection of answers to this first "European TLD Questionnaire" as an internal working paper to the *actively* interested and participating part of the DNS-WG and not to be published to a broader audience. If you decide to publish an URL to whatever larger community please exclude our information (for AT) ! As soon as the situation has stabilized we will provide you with a paper which might be included in your public collection. Kind regards, Christian --- Christian Panigl : Vienna University Computer Center - ACOnet --- --- VUCC - ACOnet : -------------------------------------------- --- --- Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Internet: Christian.Panigl at CC.UniVie.ac.at --- --- A-1010 Vienna / Austria : Tel: +43 1 4065822-383 (Fax: -170) --- From guyd at pipex.net Mon Nov 6 15:12:47 1995 From: guyd at pipex.net (Guy Davies) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:12:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <00998FE8.1BCB93C8.5@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: Hello Christian, After your message and a similar one from Antonio Blasco, I would like to assure you that I will not publish any information you do not wish for a wider audience. It was not my wish to impose publication upon you, I merely felt that the information might be useful to people outside our small working group. I will contact RIPE in order to try to organise some web space and the appropriate group access lists for this information to be made available to all those actively participating in this questionnaire. Thankyou again to all who have returned filled in questionnaires and I apologise if I appear impatient with those whose busy schedules may have made this impossible so far. On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie +43 1 4065822-383 wrote: > Dear Guy, > > sorry for beeing late, we just finished our answers after circulating > them through all involved people. You got the answers for AT a few > minutes ago. Yes, thankyou for such a complete description of your system :-) > Because of the fact that not all TLD registries were positively > participating in this effort, we would strongly suggest, that only those > parties who DID respond are getting the result. We are seeing the > collection of answers to this first "European TLD Questionnaire" as an > internal working paper to the *actively* interested and participating > part of the DNS-WG and not to be published to a broader audience. > I accept your suggestions and look forward to some interesting discussions of the various approaches to the problems facing us all. > If you decide to publish an URL to whatever larger community please > exclude our information (for AT) ! As soon as the situation has > stabilized we will provide you with a paper which might be included in > your public collection. > I will *not* publish anything which people do not want me to. Maybe the results of the working paper and the subsequent discussions could provide the basis for a more public document? > Kind regards, > Christian > Regards, Guy Davies tel: 01223 250122 ---------- fax: 01223 250121 Network Support Engineer email: guyd at pipex.net Unipalm PIPEX url: http://www.pipex.net 216 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 4WA From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Nov 6 16:54:26 1995 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 16:54:26 +0100 Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 06 Nov 1995 14:12:47 GMT. References: Message-ID: <9511061554.AA16576@ncc.ripe.net> My 2 cents: I think the WG should re-ask itself what the purpose of the exercise was. Was it to let TLD admins see what others do? If yes, circulate the results among the respondents and give it a wider audience (the WG) later on, if all respondents agree. If the goal was to collect information for the information of, potential registrants then keeping it confidential is somewhat counterproductive. Maybe you want to publishjust part of the responses. Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Nov 6 17:01:56 1995 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 17:01:56 +0100 Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 06 Nov 1995 15:44:13 +0700. <199511061444.PAA03098@re.nis.garr.it> References: <199511061444.PAA03098@re.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9511061601.AA16768@ncc.ripe.net> > Antonio_Blasco Bonito writes: > > I suggest to ask RIPE-NCC to create a private repository to be used by > an entity we can call "European TLD forum". If the information should be only available to respondants, then distributing it to them directly by e-mail is more practical. Guy can just keep a list of people. If the information is going to be a matter of RIPE working group discussion it has to be public, i.e. seen on the mailing list and archived. Not necessarily published in a widely and easily accessible way. If the goal is to create another longer standing club and the NCC is asked to support it, I would like to consider this carefully and consult with RIPE and the NCC contributors. Daniel From panigl at cc.univie.ac.at Tue Nov 7 13:59:51 1995 From: panigl at cc.univie.ac.at (Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie +43 1 4065822-383) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 13:59:51 MET Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire Message-ID: <009990A1.C57D5A78.7@cc.univie.ac.at> >Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 16:54:26 +0100 >From: Daniel Karrenberg > >I think the WG should re-ask itself what the purpose of the exercise >was. Was it to let TLD admins see what others do? If yes, circulate >the results among the respondents and give it a wider audience (the WG) >later on, if all respondents agree. At least this was my interpretation. Christian --- Christian Panigl : Vienna University Computer Center - ACOnet --- --- VUCC - ACOnet : -------------------------------------------- --- --- Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Internet: Christian.Panigl at CC.UniVie.ac.at --- --- A-1010 Vienna / Austria : Tel: +43 1 4065822-383 (Fax: -170) --- From bonito at nis.garr.it Tue Nov 7 15:09:25 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 15:09:25 MET Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <9511061554.AA16576@ncc.ripe.net>; from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Nov 6, 95 4:54 pm Message-ID: <199511071409.PAA04000@re.nis.garr.it> > > > My 2 cents: > > I think the WG should re-ask itself what the purpose of the exercise > was. Was it to let TLD admins see what others do? If yes, circulate This was indeed the goal, as stated in the last mod of the draft minutes who nobody has yet objected about: TLD administrators are increasingly contacted by multinational company which wants to create a bunch of domains in different countries. Different countries have different policies and procedures. The requestor often challenge the TLD aministrator with questions about differences in naming and registration policies. A European TLD forum might be useful to have a better understanding of the matter. The first move should be to collect how TLD management is done over Europe. As a starting point the working group decided to set up a questionnaire. The main reason to collect such information is to help the TLD administrators in their task by knowing the guidelines followed by other countries. If they wish TLD administrators have then the possibility to keep themselves aligned to the mean behaviour (best current practice?), to reduce disputes about registration requests. During the meeting Guy Davies (GD) started collecting a lot of proposed questions. He will organise the questionnaire and submit it to the list for review and later send it to the European TLD admins. [Action on GD] > the results among the respondents and give it a wider audience (the WG) > later on, if all respondents agree. That is the useful thing to do, at least initially. > > If the goal was to collect information for the information of, potential > registrants then keeping it confidential is somewhat counterproductive. > Maybe you want to publishjust part of the responses. That wasn't discussed at the WG meeting. I think that, after we have a clearer picture of what TLD admins do, we can discuss if and how publish the results or parts of them. Keeping everything confidential as well as publishing everything have different pros and cons which can properly judged only by TLD admins. I would leave this issue for further discussion. > > Daniel > Blasco ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- From bonito at nis.garr.it Tue Nov 7 15:15:45 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 15:15:45 MET Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <9511061601.AA16768@ncc.ripe.net>; from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Nov 6, 95 5:01 pm Message-ID: <199511071415.PAA04009@re.nis.garr.it> > > > > Antonio_Blasco Bonito writes: > > > > I suggest to ask RIPE-NCC to create a private repository to be used by > > an entity we can call "European TLD forum". > > If the information should be only available to respondants, then > distributing it to them directly by e-mail is more practical. Guy can > just keep a list of people. > > If the information is going to be a matter of RIPE working group > discussion it has to be public, i.e. seen on the mailing list and > archived. Not necessarily published in a widely and easily accessible > way. > > If the goal is to create another longer standing club and the NCC is > asked to support it, I would like to consider this carefully and consult > with RIPE and the NCC contributors. I see this matter similar to the EOF. RIPE is the natural reference. If the RIPE-NCC needs the approval of the NCC contributors to host a ETLDF repository, that could be asked. But I would leave this issue to be discussed on the list and at the next RIPE meeting. > > Daniel > Blasco ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Nov 7 17:14:22 1995 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 17:14:22 +0100 Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 07 Nov 1995 15:15:45 +0700. <199511071415.PAA04009@re.nis.garr.it> References: <199511071415.PAA04009@re.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9511071614.AA01912@ncc.ripe.net> > Antonio_Blasco Bonito writes: > > I see this matter similar to the EOF. RIPE is the natural reference. > If the RIPE-NCC needs the approval of the NCC contributors to host > a ETLDF repository, that could be asked. But I would leave this issue > to be discussed on the list and at the next RIPE meeting. It is not clear to me what the difference is between "ETLDF" and the DNS-WG is. Further the request was for a closed repository. These are both different from EOF. EOF is a normal RIPE working group governed by the RIPE Terms of Reference and any of their material stored at the NCC is publicly available. In other words: If the RIPE-DNS WG asks for an open repository there is no problem and we will do it immediately. If a closed subgroup asks for a closed repository this needs consultation with the RIPE chair, the WG chair and possibly the contributors. Please understand that I take this slightly more formally than usual because it is a matter of principle that all activities of RIPE and RIPE working groups are open. Daniel From bonito at nis.garr.it Tue Nov 7 17:38:16 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 17:38:16 MET Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <9511071614.AA01912@ncc.ripe.net>; from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Nov 7, 95 5:14 pm Message-ID: <199511071638.RAA04306@re.nis.garr.it> > > > > Antonio_Blasco Bonito writes: > > > > I see this matter similar to the EOF. RIPE is the natural reference. > > If the RIPE-NCC needs the approval of the NCC contributors to host > > a ETLDF repository, that could be asked. But I would leave this issue > > to be discussed on the list and at the next RIPE meeting. > > It is not clear to me what the difference is between "ETLDF" and the > DNS-WG is. Further the request was for a closed repository. These are > both different from EOF. EOF is a normal RIPE working group governed by > the RIPE Terms of Reference and any of their material stored at the NCC > is publicly available. > > In other words: If the RIPE-DNS WG asks for an open repository there is > no problem and we will do it immediately. If a closed subgroup asks for > a closed repository this needs consultation with the RIPE chair, the WG > chair and possibly the contributors. > > Please understand that I take this slightly more formally than usual > because it is a matter of principle that all activities of RIPE and RIPE > working groups are open. > > Daniel I fully understand your position. It is clear that the issue needs further discussion in the RIPE-DNS WG and in a closed group if such one is formed, which is not yet the case. Blasco From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Tue Nov 7 18:15:42 1995 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 18:15:42 MET Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire Message-ID: <009990C5.83C982EA.1@cc.univie.ac.at> >It is not clear to me what the difference is between "ETLDF" and the >DNS-WG is. Actually, I think this is a very interesting question. I think we would never have asked ourself this question if we hadn't received the (for me) surprising formal statement from the Dutch Naming Authority! I'd like to think that most of the parties involved are slightly over-reacting. On the other hand, we have had a couple of issues in the past where I perceived a less than perfect agreement between RIPE-WGs and the points of view of some TLD administrator... > Further the request was for a closed repository. These are I think this is really a minor issue - if the RIPE-NCC is not the proper place to store non-public information, well then there is alternatives available. My *personal* point of view is that DNS coordination, and TLD administration, with all of it's aspects should be an open activity. If some of the TLD administrations do think otherwise, then this should be sorted out first. The other conclusions would then be rather easy, I suppose. >both different from EOF. EOF is a normal RIPE working group governed by >the RIPE Terms of Reference and any of their material stored at the NCC >is publicly available. > >In other words: If the RIPE-DNS WG asks for an open repository there is >no problem and we will do it immediately. If a closed subgroup asks for >a closed repository this needs consultation with the RIPE chair, the WG >chair and possibly the contributors. Reasonable. More so as there is not necessarily a direct realtionship between a TLD administration function and the RIPE-NCC contributions. >Please understand that I take this slightly more formally than usual >because it is a matter of principle that all activities of RIPE and RIPE >working groups are open. I support this view. Although I have the feeling that the reasoning about how and/or where to store this type of information was fairly less formal :-) Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From egoshin at ihep.su Wed Nov 8 09:20:15 1995 From: egoshin at ihep.su (egoshin at ihep.su) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 11:20:15 +0300 (MSK) Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire References: Message-ID: Hello, >From: Guy Davies >Hello again folks, > >Response to the questionnaire has, so far, been a bit disappointing. I >have received only eight filled in questionnaires. I again can note that origin TLD questionary was sent in non-ASCII encoding. It is need to do some efforts to decode it. (Of course, there is first version of it in ASCII which was sent to DNS WG, but it is not the request for TLD hostmasters) It will be usefull to send it again in normal ASCII. - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22 From egoshin at ihep.su Wed Nov 8 10:28:09 1995 From: egoshin at ihep.su (egoshin at ihep.su) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 12:28:09 +0300 (MSK) Subject: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire References: <9511061554.AA16576@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: Hello All, >From: Daniel Karrenberg >I think the WG should re-ask itself what the purpose of the exercise >was. Was it to let TLD admins see what others do? If yes, circulate >the results among the respondents and give it a wider audience (the WG) >later on, if all respondents agree. This item (TLD questionary) is connected with latest changes in .XXX domain registration policy (payment). I think we (DNS WG, not TLD representative) understand - that can happens in future with such policies and that problems we can meet with it. As first step this TLD questionary is good direction - what is near us in the another countries. And TLD represenattivies can answer on this questionaries with understanding of this task - his answers on it may be not full and may be not very correct - it is the only survey in purpose of DNS WG. The result of this survey can't be used as reference material for specific country TLD policy. If TLD representativies want establish closed group for some task they can define target of it and make it, of course. But in my mind it isn't DNS WG job. >From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" > My *personal* point of view is that DNS > coordination, and TLD administration, with all of it's aspects should > be an open activity. If some of the TLD administrations do think > otherwise, then this should be sorted out first. In my mind at least TLD is free of charge you right. But first step to introduce payments may be to restrict circulation of some information. Of course, the undesire of answer for survey may be another - for exam rules written in national language. In any way we can promise to use the result of TLD questionary as survey only. - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22 From hostmaster at cwi.nl Wed Nov 8 11:18:57 1995 From: hostmaster at cwi.nl (hostmaster at cwi.nl) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 11:18:57 +0100 Subject: DNS Questionnaire In-Reply-To: "Your message of Mon, 23 Oct 1995 15:38:22 +0000 (GMT) " Message-ID: <9511081018.AA01900=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> As announced earlier, only the technical questions in the questionnaire will be answered. A document exists describing the conditions for domain registrations under .NL. This document is available on request, but it is in Dutch only and no authoritative translation in any other language is or will be made available. The answers given below represent only a brief excerpt from the document. The answers may be published, but: a) although it's not very likely, conditions *may* change someday; b) it should be made very clear that these answers do *not* take the place of the document itself; c) the document itself is far more specific than the answers given below. -hostmaster ========================================================================= 4a. Would you register sub.tld (e.g. co.uk, ac.uk etc)? No. b. Do you have geographic subdomains in the tld (e.g. state.tld, county.tld)? No. c. Do you have different categories of 2nd level domains (e.g. "public" ones like "co.at" and "private" ones like alcatel.at) in parallel? No. d. If you have "public" 2nd level domains, what are the rules for running such a domain (e.g. everybody's registration has to be accepted for free if it fits into this category)? n/a e. If so, how do you split your tld? n/a 5a. Would you register domain.tld (e.g. microsoft.uk)? Yes, as long as the conditions are met. b. Would you register domain.sub.tld (e.g. microsoft.co.uk)? No. 6a. Do you allow individuals to register names or just organisations? Only legally established organisations. b. If you differentiate between individuals and organisations, what are your criteria? Registration with a Dutch Chamber of Commerce, except for governmental organisations. 7a. Do you require proof of identity? Yes. b. If so, how do you prove the identity of a requestor? Via a copy of the Chamber of Commerce registration. 8. Do you register domains only for organisations/individuals located in your country or do you allow anyone to register in your tld? Only for organisations located in or having a subsidiary in the Netherlands, registered with a CoC. 9a. Do you allow a single organisation to register more than one domain? No. b. If so, do you limit the number of domains registered by a single organisation? n/a 10a.To whom would you allocate well known names like digital.tld/ digital.sub.tld? See 10b. b.What criteria do you use when deciding whether or not to allow a name? We only accept the CoC-registered *company* name as the basis for a domain name. Trade names, brand names, etc. are all completely irrelevant and are never accepted as the basis for a domain name. We treat domain names exactly for what they are: pure *technical* entities meant to cover as many people, hosts, sites, etc. as possible. Commercial arguments therefore don't have any relevance in conjunction with domain names. 11a.How do you arbitrate between two or more claims to the same name? Requests are handled in order of receipt. Arbitration is only *very* seldom necessary. b.Who is responsible for the arbitration? The people behind the function "NL Naming Authority". 12a.Do you allow the registration of geographical names (cities, countries, rivers, etc)? No, with the exception of cities/municipalities, which can *only* register the name of the city/municipality as domain name. b.If so, would you register one for an individual organisation? n/a 13a.Do you have any names which may not be registered (e.g. names in bad taste, names of protocols, etc)? Yes. These names are "administratively registered", but with a TXT record "Blocked, non-registrable name" and a comparable whois entry. 14a.Do you run secondary nameservice for subdomains of the tld? No. We consider that a task of service provider, as a (additional) service to their customers. b.If so, is this optional/mandatory and do you charge for the service? n/a 15a.Do you check for a running nameserver at the time of request? Yes. All specified nameservers *must* be up and running and set up correctly when the request is received. b.Do you check for a running nameserver at regular intervals after the name has been delegated? Seldom. 16. Do you allow the reservation of names (i.e. no running service)? Definitely not. 18a.Do you remove unused domain names? Yes. b.If so, how do you define an unused domain? A domain that is cancelled by the admin-c or that is no longer serviced by any service provider. 19. Do you think that the current system you operate will be changed over the next 12 months? Who knows... 20. Do you accept requests for domains from providers only, from anyone or from a different group only? Request from or on behalf of third parties are not accepted. Requests can be submitted *via* a service provider, but then it must be "identifiably clear" that the original requestor has read and agreed with the conditions for registering a domain under .NL. 22. Do you have any automation of the registration/delegation process? No. From VANNOZZI at NIS.GARR.IT Thu Nov 9 17:48:38 1995 From: VANNOZZI at NIS.GARR.IT (Daniele Vannozzi) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 95 17:48:38 MET Subject: DNS Questionnaire Message-ID: <9511091650.AA03892@ncc.ripe.net> DNS Questionnaire ================= 1. Who defines your policies? They are defined by a open committee called ITA-PE which coordinates e-mail activities in Italy. The committee includes individuals from most of the italian Service Providers and Academic Institutions. 2. How do you establish your naming policies? The agreements are reached finding consensus (avoiding votes) after discussion either on a mailing list, ita-pe at nis.garr.it, or during quaterly meetings. 3. What legal status, if any, do your decisions/policies have? None for the time being, but we are expecting formal recognition from Italian PTT Ministry and UNINFO (ISO Italian branch). 4a. Would you register sub.tld (e.g. co.uk, ac.uk etc)? No. b. Do you have geographic subdomains in the tld (e.g. state.tld, county.tld)? Yes, hierarchical administrative geographycal domains c. Do you have different categories of 2nd level domains (e.g."public" ones like "co.at" and "private" ones like "alcatel.at") in parallel? Yes, administrative geographycal 2nd and 3rd level domains are public. d. If you have "public" 2nd level domains, what are the rules for running such a domain (e.g. everybody's registration has to be accepted for free if it fits into this category)? Public domains are delegated to an organization wishing to provide a free name service in its region. Delegation could be withdrawn if the delegated organization does not properly administer the geographical domain. e. If so, how do you split your tld? Hierarchical administrative geographical domains as follows: 2nd level - Regions registered with both full name and 3-letter shortname. (e.g. Lombardia and LOM, Toscana and TOS, etc) - Provincies with both fullname and 2-letter shortname. (e.g. Napoli and NA, Milano and MI, etc) 3rd level - Cities with fullname only, under their province. (e.g. Capri.NA.it, etc). Note that cities giving their name to the province do not register also as 3rd level. 5a. Would you register domain.tld (e.g. microsoft.uk)? Yes, if compliant with the registration rules. b. Would you register domain.sub.tld (e.g. microsoft.co.uk)? No. Only if sub.tld is already registered, then we accept to register (for information purposes only) its subdomains. 6a. Do you allow individuals to register names or just organisations? Just organizations. b. If you differentiate between individuals and organisations, what are your criteria? An organization should have legal status as such. 7a. Do you require proof of identity? Yes. b. If so, how do you prove the identity of a requestor? We ask the requestor to sign his acceptance of the rules on company head paper and we trust a number of known ISPs who actually submit the request on behalf of the requestor. 8. Do you register domains only for organisations/individuals located in your country or do you allow anyone to register in your tld? Only organizations with legal status in Italy. 9a. Do you allow a single organisation to register more than one domain? No, with some exceptions (e.g. legally registered newspapers and magazines belonging to the same publisher, some telematics services, etc) b. If so, do you limit the number of domains registered by a single organisation? n/a 10a.To whom would you allocate well known names like digital.tld/ digital.sub.tld? We ask, but without enforcement, that the domain name should be as much similar as possible to the legal name of the requesting organization. If not we first recall the rule "one name per organization" and briefly try to convince the requestor not to use a well known name to avoid conflicts in the future. b.What criteria do you use when deciding whether or not to allow a name? Names are allowed except when they are in the set of the reserved names or shorter then 3 characteres (at 2nd level) or of 2 characters (under any other "public" domain). 11a.How do you arbitrate between two or more claims to the same name? We inform both parties of the claim asking if one of them could renounce. If none renounces we give the name to the first requestor and mark it as challenged. We leave to them resolve their conflict as they wish. We query at regular intervals for both parties to resolve the challenge, in any form they wish, to solve the situation: bilateral agreement, arbitration commettee, civil law judgment, ... We also inform both parties when very similar names may cause ambiguity. b.Who is responsible for the arbitration? Any Italian legal entity. 12a.Do you allow the registration of geographical names (cities, countries, rivers, etc)? Yes but regions, provinces and cities are special cases (see 4.b,c,d,e). b.If so, would you register one for an individual organisation? Yes, but we briefly try to discourage the requestor. 13a.Do you have any names which may not be registered (e.g. names in bad taste, names of protocols, etc)? Names shorter than 3 characters (2nd level domains) or 2 characters (other levels). Names of protocols/services (tcp, finger, ftp, telnet, etc) and ambiguos names (email, www, ecc). 14a.Do you run secondary nameservice for subdomains of the tld? Yes, only for 2nd level subdomains (e.g. cnr.it, fiat.it, ecc) and 2nd and 3rd level administrative geographical domains. b.If so, is this optional/mandatory and do you charge for the service? Optional, no charge. Mandatory for public geographical domains. 15a.Do you check for a running nameserver at the time of request? Yes, for at least a couple of them b.Do you check for a running nameserver at regular intervals after the name has been delegated? Yes, because we check for the reachability of each postmaster@.it. 16. Do you allow the reservation of names (i.e. no running service)? No 17a.Do you charge for reservation/registration of names? No, at the moment. Policy to be modified b.If so, is it a one off fee, an annual subscription or both? n/a c.How much is the fee? n/a 18a.Do you remove unused domain names? Yes. b.If so, how do you define an unused domain? A domain that is cancelled by the admin-c or that is no longer serviced by any Service Provider. A domain which results inactive for more than 6 consecutive months. 19. Do you think that the current system you operate will be changed over the next 12 months? Yes, completion and update of existing rules and policies are expected soon. 20. Do you accept requests for domains from providers only, from anyone or from a different group only? >From Providers only. 21. What resources are allocated to the administration of the domain? 3 FTE, 2 servers, 3 workstations. 22. Do you have any automation of the registration/delegation process? Yes, partial (e-mail robot). Daniele Vannozzi Phone: +39 50 593280 GARR-NIS Phone NIS: +39 50 593360 c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Fax: +39 50 904052 Via Santa Maria 36 Telex: 500371 - CNUCE 56100 Pisa - Italy E-mail: vannozzi at nis.garr.it From GeertJan.deGroot at ripe.net Thu Nov 9 19:01:21 1995 From: GeertJan.deGroot at ripe.net (Geert Jan de Groot) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 19:01:21 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Nov 1995 17:45:21 +0100." <199511091645.BB21381@sztaki.hu> Message-ID: <9511091801.AA05013@ncc.ripe.net> Hi Gabor, First off, this is a hot debate in the RIPE DNS working group (dns-rw at ripe.net), and I suggest followups to be sent there. I know that at least for the NL TLD, it is required that one is registered in the Chambers of Commerce. (I hope piet^H^H^H^Hhostmaster does not mind this translation from the Dutch guidelines ;-) Geert Jan On Thu, 9 Nov 1995 17:45:21 +0100 Gabor Kiss wrote: > There is a hot debate in Hungary. Some peoples want me to > start registering second level domains for individuals. > > Personally I think this practice would have serious disadvantages: > - I would have to process incredible amount of registration requests. > - We would have to run the top level DNS on a really big machine. > - The RIPE-DB would contain 26000 domain objects instead of 16000. > > I wish to know how this problem is handled in different countries. > I guess there was several continent-wide discussion about this > question. Where can I find documents and archived matter? From e07 at nikhef.nl Fri Nov 10 01:53:33 1995 From: e07 at nikhef.nl (Eric Wassenaar) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 01:53:33 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 9 Nov 1995 17:45:21 +0100" Message-ID: <9511100053.BA17010@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> > There is a hot debate in Hungary. Some peoples want me to > start registering second level domains for individuals. Arbitrary individuals ? The debate will become even hotter as soon as you start to implement such plan. Perhaps so hot as to cause a partial meltdown of the internet as we know it. Look at what happened to the *.com domain. Even most knowledgable and repectable people did not foresee that this would grow out-of-hand so soon as it does now. Registering individuals in one single domain constitutes essentially one enormous flat namespace. The DNS was designed to avoid just that, both for technical and administrative reasons. >From a technical view, I am not convinced that the DNS will be able to gracefully handle domains with, say, a million entries. Not an extraordinary number in the long run for a big country. But presumably the administrative burden will be overwhelming. Compare this with administration in real life, be it civil registration, telephone directories, you name it. All has been organized in a distributed matter of some sort, e.g. geographically. Apparently that's the way to survive. Think about arbitration of names. A first-come first-serve policy would be totally unrealistic. Strong naming conventions would have to be designed. This may be impossible to enforce. You really have to think beyond current experiments with a few hundred individuals, and anticipate what can happen when this becomes common practice. Having individuals registered in one single domain, *any* domain, does not look a good idea. In case that domain were a top-level domain, it looks like disaster. -- Eric Wassenaar From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Nov 10 09:46:46 1995 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:46:46 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 10 Nov 1995 01:53:33 MET. <9511100053.BA17010@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> References: <9511100053.BA17010@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> Message-ID: <9511100846.AA11630@ncc.ripe.net> [Note ripe-op at ripe.net deleted from CCs] I strongly support Eric Wassenaar's comment about the dangers of creating too large domains. It is a problem for DNS technology. It is a problem for registration/administration. Think about the situation a few years down the road: IT DOES NOT SCALE. DO NOT DO IT! The alternatives: 1) Do not register individuals. This is only temporary relief but it may last a few years. 2) Register individuals in geographic subdomains, approaching postal addresses. 3) Register individuals in arbitrary subdomains. One scheme proposed was something like name.123456.indiv.nn where 123456 is an arbitrarily chosen domain name. Anyone can register a number and start providing registration services to individuals. The number space is quite large such that there can be as many of these registries as one could concievably want. Robert Elz wrote a quite elaborate proposal for something like this back in Oct 94. I do not know the extent to which it has been a success but people might want to look at the id.au domain. My personal opinion is 1) Never register individuals under a TLD. 2) If you want to register individuals, choose between 2 and 3 above. Daniel From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Fri Nov 10 10:01:54 1995 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:01:54 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: "Your message of Thu, 09 Nov 1995 19:01:21 +0100 " <9511091801.AA05013@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9511100901.AA06881=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> I know that at least for the NL TLD, it is required that one is registered in the Chambers of Commerce. (I hope piet^H^H^H^Hhostmaster does not mind this translation from the Dutch guidelines ;-) That's a rendering, not a translation. :-) Piet From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Fri Nov 10 10:40:40 1995 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:40:40 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: "Your message of Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:46:46 +0100 " <9511100846.AA11630@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9511100940.AA07043=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> I strongly support Eric Wassenaar's comment about the dangers of creating too large domains. That's the reason why, whenever possible, we force the creation of a "parent domain" or to register under such a domain instead of directly under .NL. A good example is Philips: it has quite a large number of independent or more or less independent subsidiaries in the Netherlands. But we don't allow any of them to register a domain under .NL; we force them to register under the philips.nl domain. Piet From kre at munnari.OZ.AU Fri Nov 10 13:03:57 1995 From: kre at munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 23:03:57 +1100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:46:46 BST." <9511100846.AA11630@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1502.816005037@munnari.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:46:46 +0100 From: Daniel Karrenberg Message-ID: <9511100846.AA11630 at ncc.ripe.net> 1) Do not register individuals. This is only temporary relief but it may last a few years. That doesn't work either, the individuals just pretend to be businesses. 2) Register individuals in geographic subdomains, approaching postal addresses. This would work if you could convince the people that the domain registration just says something about how they registered, and nothing about them as they exist. While this is certainly true, technically, in people's minds it isn't, they seem to believe that if their domain name is foo.melb.vic.au and they move to Sydney they have to change domain names. That's not a good impression to leave (apart from causing them to unnecessarily change their domain name, it also adds to registry work for no particular good purpose). 3) Register individuals in arbitrary subdomains. One scheme proposed was something like Robert Elz wrote a quite elaborate proposal for something like this back in Oct 94. I do not know the extent to which it has been a success but people might want to look at the id.au domain. Its actually still just starting. That's mostly due to my laziness (or how busy I am, or however you like to phrase it). That is, at each step along the way of setting it up, I inserted an arbitrary delay of about 4-5 months... It is mostly running now though, and seems OK, though as yet we have not a lot of registrations. For those who don't know of it, the arbitrary string in our case is currently a label that refers to some Australian flora or fauna - however we can use anything as the need arises. For us, one level is enough, we're pretty sure that 10000 entries in a domain is manageable, that means we could have 10000 domains each with 10000 individuals, which is, I think 100 million, which is just plenty for Australia for a very long time. My personal opinion is 1) Never register individuals under a TLD. I agree totally - in fact, my personal opinion is to only register (large) classes in a TLD, that is, all end user domains are at least 3 levels. I know that many Eurpoean contry registries don't agree however. kre From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Fri Nov 10 13:39:29 1995 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:39:29 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: "Your message of Fri, 10 Nov 1995 23:03:57 +1100 " <1502.816005037@munnari.OZ.AU> Message-ID: <9511101239.AA07696=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> 1) Do not register individuals. This is only temporary relief but it may last a few years. That doesn't work either, the individuals just pretend to be businesses. They can't, when [evidence of] Chamber of Commerce registration is required, as is the case for .NL. And since CoC registration costs money and has a couple of legal and tax implications, it serves as a good showstopper in many cases. Piet From noreilly at ucd.ie Fri Nov 10 14:17:29 1995 From: noreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:17:29 +0000 Subject: Second level domains for individuals Message-ID: <9511101315.AA16130@ncc.ripe.net> > From @IRLEARN.UCD.IE:Piet.Beertema at CWI.NL Fri Nov 10 12:48:14 1995 > > 1) Do not register individuals. This is only temporary > relief but it may last a few years. > That doesn't work either, the individuals just pretend > to be businesses. > They can't, when [evidence of] Chamber of Commerce > registration is required, as is the case for .NL. > And since CoC registration costs money and has a > couple of legal and tax implications, it serves > as a good showstopper in many cases. Sometimes I miss the Dutch business virtues: they make life so simple! When the local legal system recognizes that a private individual without registration may be a business, or even a number of businesses, it's not so easy. I guess the Australian system shares a common origin withe the Irish one. Niall O'Reilly From aw at eunet.ch Fri Nov 10 14:35:35 1995 From: aw at eunet.ch (Alex Wilansky) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:35:35 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals Message-ID: <199511101335.OAA29952@eunet.ch> Can you give me one good reason why we SHOULD register private individuals? Just one good reason. Then we'll see.......... Aleks Null Illigitimi Caborundom From kre at cs.mu.OZ.AU Fri Nov 10 14:37:15 1995 From: kre at cs.mu.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 00:37:15 +1100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:46:46 BST." <9511100846.AA11630@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1261.816010635@cs.mu.OZ.AU> Daniel asked me to let you all know how to find the ID.AU policy (note, this is a policy for allocation of, and maintenance of, sub-domains of ID.AU, not for their internal registration guidelines). I have made it available by anonymous FTP host: munnari.OZ.AU file: netinfo/ID.AU-policy (simple ascii text) Or: The "-policy" stuck on the end is just to prevent weird WWW browsers from assuming that any file that ends ".au" is audio and attempting to play the thing through speakers... kre From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Fri Nov 10 15:02:04 1995 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:02:04 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: "Your message of Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:35:35 +0100 " <199511101335.OAA29952@eunet.ch> Message-ID: <9511101402.AA07931=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Can you give me one good reason why we SHOULD register private individuals? Just one good reason. There is no good reason whatsoever. After all a domain name is a purely technical thing, meant to be able to cover a large number of people/hosts/sites. The term "domain" by itself says enough already. Invididuals being able to register a *domain* name violates this technical principle. Individuals who are denied a domain name often come up with arguments as "denial of right of access to the Internet", "right on a domain name", etc. That's all bullshit. First of all there's no such thing as a "right" on a domain name. Domain names should be assigned or granted only when the technical purpose is met, although I admit that in some cases that can be difficult. And any individuals can get access to the Internet by hooking up to a service provider. The only disadvantage is that their e-mail address and perhaps other "properties" change when they go to another service provider. But that's no good reason for violating the technical nature of domain names and assigning domain names to individuals. Piet From kissg at sztaki.hu Fri Nov 10 17:15:52 1995 From: kissg at sztaki.hu (Gabor Kiss) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 17:15:52 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals Message-ID: <199511101615.fi17312@sztaki.hu> > First off, this is a hot debate in the RIPE DNS working group > (dns-rw at ripe.net), and I suggest followups to be sent there. This is a Hungarian language discussion. I'm afraid most of dns-rw subscribers doesn't speak Hungarian. However articles are archived here: URL: gopher://HUEARN.sztaki.hu:70/11/listak/lsvarch/HUDOM-L Regards Gabor From bonito at nis.garr.it Fri Nov 17 09:27:40 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 9:27:40 MET Subject: RIPE22 dns-wg minutes - Final version Message-ID: <199511170827.JAA11294@re.nis.garr.it> Folks, since no more comments were received I here enclose the final version of the minutes. ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- -----------------------cut here--------------------- RIPE 22 DNS Working Group minutes Amsterdam 12 October 1995 Chairman: Antonio Blasco Bonito (ABB) Scribe: Benoit Grange (BG) Participants ------------ Antonio-Blasco Bonito GARR-NIS Guy Davies Unipalm PIPEX Sabine Dolderer RZ Uni-Karlsruhe, DENIC Oliver Doll EUnet Deutschland GmbH Armand Dominque FCCN/RCCN Francis Dupont INRIA Krzysztof Dzwigala NASK Benoit Grange INRIA / NIC France David Hujer SPT TELECOM, A.S. Avgust Jauk ARNES Klaus Landefeld Nacamar Data Comm. Bohumila Mullerova CESNET Ireneusz Neska NASK Peder Chr. Norgaard Telebit Communications A/S Christian Panigl UniVie/ACOnet Marc Pichon TRANSPAC Franck Pradal France Telecom Eva Ptackova SPT TELECOM, A.S. Pulak Rakshit Cable Online Ltd Nick Reid RIPE NCC Valeria Rossi CILEA Oliver Smith Demon Internet Ltd Milan Sterba HP Czech republic Thierry Scortatore FRANCE TELECOM Bernard Tuy CNRS / UREC Pierre Verbaeten KU Leuven Eric Wassenaar NIKHEF Ton Windgassen EU.IBM Preliminaries ------------- Rob Blokzijl presented the apologies from the working group chairman, Leonid Yegoshin (LY), who had a visa problem and asked ABB to chair the group. The agenda was reorganized and agreed. 1) Reports about DNS Failures -------------------------- [This item should have been covered by LY, but because he was not there some of us reported current problems] BG talked about the known problem with uncesessary glues that appear in zone transfers. This happens on most old implementations (BIND prior to 4.9) as shipped my most of the vendors. DNS Operation suffer from old implementation that have known bugs and proble ms. The usual suggestion is to install a recent version of BIND, which happens to be a beta version. It was noted that, altough that effectively eliminates the problem, many DNS administrators are not willing to use a beta version. The working group agreed on sending a letter to the ISC to ask to put BIND 4.9.3 in final so that doubts about it are solved. [ACTION on ABB] Many expressed concern about how delegation changes are done at the Internic. Today Internic accepts any change to current delegation (normal and reverse) and also to glue records. This leads to situation where some bad data is introduced, either as an error, or as some malicious action. Eg: 'ns.ripe.net' (193.0.0.193) is primary for 'ripe.net' and a lot of important zones. John Doe wants to create a 'johndoe.com' zone and submits a request to Internic mentionning both 'banana.johndoe.com' (198.1.2.3) as primary and 'ns.ripe.net' with a WRONG address 193.0.0.93 because of a typo. Internic creates the 'johndoe.com' zone and CHANGES the glue record for 'ns.ripe.net'. All delegations to 'ns.ripe.net' are affected because Internic accepted unnecessary glue record from John Doe and blindly accepted to change an existing name server IP address. The working group recommends that Internic does not accept unneccessary glue records and double checks any change to existing glue records. [ACTION on Geert Jan de Groot] Some people do not watch their name servers: it happens that some name servers are left unattended and fail without anyone noticing. This has an impact on the performance and reliability of the overall name service. People should watch their name servers and their zones on their primary and secondaries. At least the 'host' command can be used in the following way: host -C -A -L 1 to do this at regular intervals. During the plenary session someone remembered the existance of RFC1713 A. Romao, "Tools for DNS debugging", which is usually referred to as the guide for DNS administrators and suggested to ask the author to include such recommendation. [ACTION on ABB] 2) 'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation (D. Kessens) ------------------------------------------------------------- David briefly talked about the tool he wrote which is being used at RIPE- NCC. This tools checks if the reverse zone is correctly configured as per RIPE requirements. Usage: Send an e-mail message to 'auto-inaddr at ripe.net' containing the 'inet-num' object with 'rev-svr:' attributes listing the desired name servers (1 name server per line). Send an empty message to get help. The final editing of the zone file is still done manually and the operators also checks the author of the update. After a short discussion the group agreed that some authentication mechanism be added in order to avoid malicious changes to current delegation, specially when the reverse delegation process will be completly automated. [ACTION on RIPE-NCC] This tool could also be used to check for normal delegations, but only after some rewriting because some of the checks are specific to reverse delegation or RIPE requirements. Sources are on ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/inaddrtool-VERSION Another tool to check delegation exist under http://www.nic.fr/ZoneCheck Sources of this tool will be freely available by the end of the year. [ACTION on BG] 3) Future developments of the name servers --------------------------------------- It was reported that: Paul Vixie got RU-BIND and will somehow merge the two programs. IBM has donated code to do dynamic updates, and an other source is available as well. 4) About the recent changes of the root name servers ------------------------------------------------- All root name servers have been renamed as '.root-servers.net'. If you want to know the "old name" of a name server, query for the TXT record associated with the name. A new primary for the root zone will be created and managed directly from IANA, and the primary for the '.com', etc. zones will remain managed by Internic. 5) Charging for domain names, etc. ------------------------------- TLD administrators are increasingly contacted by multinational company which wants to create a bunch of domains in different countries. Different countries have different policies and procedures. The requestor often challenge the TLD aministrator with questions about differences in naming and registration policies. A European TLD forum might be useful to have a better understanding of the matter. The first move should be to collect how TLD management is done over Europe. As a starting point the working group decided to set up a questionnaire. The main reason to collect such information is to help the TLD administrators in their task by knowing the guidelines followed by other countries. If they wish TLD administrators have then the possibility to keep themselves aligned to the mean behaviour (best current practice?), to reduce disputes about registration requests. During the meeting Guy Davies (GD) started collecting a lot of proposed questions. He will organise the questionnaire and submit it to the list for review and later send it to the European TLD admins. [Action on GD] DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT From egoshin at ihep.su Sat Nov 18 18:24:12 1995 From: egoshin at ihep.su (egoshin at ihep.su) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 20:24:12 +0300 (MSK) Subject: RIPE22 dns-wg minutes - Final version References: <199511170827.JAA11294@re.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: >since no more comments were received I here enclose the final version >of the minutes. Thank you Antonio for work. - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22 From Francis.Dupont at inria.fr Sat Nov 18 19:59:05 1995 From: Francis.Dupont at inria.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 19:59:05 +0100 Subject: Second level domains for individuals In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 09 Nov 1995 17:45:21 +0100. <199511091645.BB21381@sztaki.hu> Message-ID: <199511181859.TAA05252@givry.inria.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: There is a hot debate in Hungary. Some peoples want me to start registering second level domains for individuals. => This question was hot debates in DNS working group too. We have no (not yet ?) good solution but we understand well the issues. This applies to other problems with a lot of small domains, individuals (aka private persons) are only the worst case: - individuals can be put in a second/third level domain - this domain must be split (because an huge flat domain is bad for tech and admin reasons) and *more* the management of its sub-domains must be given to ad hoc organization (this *is* the real problem!). - one way is to use a geographical hierarchy (as US domain). It gives a nice split without problems but it is hard to involve local/regional authorities into DNS management (it is an half success but in fact you need only to give the first level, ie regional). The main drawback is the name (and E-mail address) changes when an individual moves. - the second way is to use an arbitrary split, for instance an hash on the name. It gives good and *stable* split but it can't solve the management delegation problem. - the last way is to put individuals into domains related and managed by ISP (Internet Service Providers). This has a *terrible* drawback: individuals will be *bound* to their service providers. Then I can't recommend this! There is no new idea ? Francis.Dupont at inria.fr PS: just for an example of the need of a solution of this problem: in France some CATV operators propose (experimental) access to the Internet to individuals using PCs and CATV modems (pre IEEE 802.14). From bonito at nis.garr.it Mon Nov 20 10:39:54 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 10:39:54 MET Subject: RIPE22 dns-wg minutes - Final version In-Reply-To: ; from "egoshin@ihep.su" at Nov 18, 95 8:24 pm Message-ID: <199511200939.KAA12525@re.nis.garr.it> > > >since no more comments were received I here enclose the final version > >of the minutes. > > Thank you Antonio for work. It was my duty! ;-) Call me Blasco, please, everybody does... > > - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22 > > -- ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- From pab at uni.net Sat Nov 25 17:10:22 1995 From: pab at uni.net (Paolo Bevilacqua) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 17:10:22 0100 Subject: WWW nscount Message-ID: <199511251610.RAA30550@malcolm.rmnet.it> Hello, This WWW interface to a little DNS tool can be useful to know about 'load' for nameservers under a given domain. Greetings, /pab From inaddr at ripe.net Thu Nov 30 14:09:05 1995 From: inaddr at ripe.net (RIPE NCC IN-ADDR. ARPA Role Account) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:09:05 +0100 Subject: New version of the reverse delegation checking tool Message-ID: <9511301309.AA13156@ncc.ripe.net> Dear all, This is the newest version of the reverse delegation tool that we use at the RIPE NCC for checking your reverse delegation requests. A lot has been changed. The program is now split into functional components and a common output format has been defined to be able to let it work together with your own tool that can update your zone files. Still missing is a back-end that actually updates your zone files. Furthermore, it can not check if nameservers are at the same ethernet. The most recent version will always be available at our ftp server: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/inaddrtool-DATE.tar.gz Of course comments and bug reports are welcome and can be send to: Kind regards, David Kessens RIPE NCC -------- README for the inaddrtool Date: 951130 Author: David Kessens, RIPE NCC NOTE: PLEASE USE THE NORMAL PROCEDURE AS DESCRIBED IN RIPE-105 IF YOU WANT TO DO A REVERSE DELEGATION REQUEST FOR A REVERSE DOMAIN MANAGED BY THE RIPE NCC, BUT SEND YOUR REQUEST TO INSTEAD OF Reverse delegation checking tool -------------------------------- As of today the RIPE NCC offers an automated method for the submission of reverse zone delegations in 193.in-addr.arpa and 194.in-addr.arpa. The reverse delegation requests and the zone files on all nameservers will be checked automatically. The diagnostics generated by these checks will be returned to you automatically too. This will make you aware of any problems very quickly, so that you can correct them and re-submit your request. The most recent version of the tool is publicly available at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/inaddrtool-DATE.tar.gz The tool itself needs perl4/5 and uses some other external programs for gathering the information it needs for checking your zone files: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/ping.tar.Z ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/dns/host.tar.Z ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pride/tools/prtraceroute-2.0beta3.shar.gz (perl4 only) Installing the software: - uncompress/unzip and untar the tool and the external programs - if needed, edit the variables in the source code (inaddrtool.config): $TESTMODE=1 for testing, 0 for normal use $CHECKCONNECTIVITY=1 will check the connectivity to the nameserver with ping & prtraceroute when the tool has problems gathering the zone info from a certain server. $HELPFILE="/ncc/ftp/ripe/docs/ripe-105.txt"; The help file $TMPDIR="Directory for storing temporary files"; $UPDLOGDIR="Directory for logging the incoming requests"; $ACKLOGDIR="Directory for logging the outgoing acknowledgements"; $FWLOGDIR="Directory for logging the outgoing approved requests"; $MSGQUEUEDIR="Directory for temporarily storing the requests"; $NSNAME="The name of your nameserver"; $NAMESERVERCHECK=; see for details the source code and discussion below about the NSNAME keyword $MAILCMD=; see for details the source code $NICECMD="Your nice program" or "" if you don't want to use this feature; $HUMANMAIL="The E-mail address of the human processing the approved requests and answering questions. When $TESTMODE=1, all mail will be send to this address"; $AUTOMAIL="The E-mail address of the mail box that will auto process incoming requests"; and finally you might want to change the limits we use for the timiing parameters defined at the end of the config file. Values that start with $too.* are the values that define the upper/lower limits of the timers. Values that start with $low|high define the limits wherein no warnings will be generated. - Put something like: "|/home/user/bin/inaddrtool 2>/dev/null" in the .forward file of user $AUTOMAIL Note: there is *NO* queuing mechanism yet, so beware of overloading your machine with a large number of requests. The input: The tool expects to read an E-mail message from standard input. It can be used from a .forward files as well as a stand-alone program. The E-mail message should contain a valid RIPE database object as described in the ripe-105 (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-105) procedure. When the automated procedure does not detect any errors, the request is forwarded to the $HUMANMAIL role account person for some additional manual checks and the processing of the delegation itself. An acknowledgement of this fact is also sent to the people mentioned in the From:/Reply-To: and Cc: field in the E-mail message. The tool will return an error report if errors are found. If $TESTMODE=1 all mail will be send to $HUMANMAIL. You can use some keywords in the 'Subject:' line of your E-mail to control the checking process. The use of the LONGACK keyword is very recommended. HELP - will send you a (patched) ripe-105 document CHANGE - is needed if you want to change an existing reverse delegation LONGACK - will give you the most verbose output as possible TEST - do the checks, but sent only a report back to the user even if no errors are found You also might want to use the special keyword NSNAME that's documented in the source code itself (for experts only). This variable can be used to change the rules that we use for when our own $NSNAME is required/optional/not allowed as a secondary/primary nameserver. RIPE document ripe-105 requires you to send in a RIPE database 'inetnum' object with a 'rev-srv' attribute for each nameserver for single/multiple C's reverse delegation requests and for whole blocks 'domain' objects with 'nserver' attributes for each nameserver. I am neither a DNS expert or native English writer ;-) so all your comments are welcome! Please send them together with complaints, bug reports or special requests to .