From guyd at pipex.net Sun Oct 15 16:37:06 1995 From: guyd at pipex.net (Guy Davies) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 16:37:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: TLD Questionnaire Message-ID: Hello All, Here's the first draft for the TLD questionnaire. I propose to send it to the SOA for each European TLD with a note to forward it to the SOA for any neutral subdomains (e.g. co.uk, ac.at) as they are more likely to be aware of the day to day running of the domains available for use by the 'public'. If anyone has any objections or modifications, please contact me and I'll try to include them. If I hear nothing by the end of next week (20th October), I'll send the questionnaire unaltered. If anyone has a list of *all* the European TLDs, please send me a copy so I can mail all the SOAs. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DNS Questionnaire ================= 1. Who defines your policies? 2. How do you establish your naming policies? 3. What legal status, if any, do your decisions/policies have? 4a. Would you register sub.tld (e.g. co.uk, ac.uk etc)? b. Do you have geographic subdomains in the tld (e.g. state.tld, county.tld)? c. If so, how do you split your tld? 5a. Would you register domain.tld (e.g. microsoft.uk)? b. Would you register domain.sub.tld (e.g. microsoft.co.uk)? 6a. Do you allow individuals to register names or just organisations? b. If you differentiate between individuals and organisations, what are your criteria? 7a. Do you require proof of identity? b. If so, how do you prove the identity of a requestor? 8. Do you register domains only for organisations/individuals located in your country or do you allow anyone to register in your tld? 9a. Do you allow a single organisation to register more than one domain? b. If so, do you limit the number of domains registered by a single organisation? 10a.To whom would you allocate well known names like digital.tld/ digital.sub.tld? b.What criteria do you use when deciding whether or not to allow a name? 11a.How do you arbitrate between two or more claims to the same name? b.Who is responsible for the arbitration? 12a.Do you allow the registration of geographical names (cities, countries, rivers, etc)? b.If so, would you register one for an individual organisation? 13a.Do you have any names which may not be registered (e.g. names in bad taste, names of protocols, etc)? 14a.Do you run secondary nameservice for subdomains of the tld? b.If so, is this optional/mandatory and do you charge for the service? 15a.Do you check for a running nameserver at the time of request? b.Do you check for a running nameserver at regular intervals after the name has been delegated? 16. Do you allow the reservation of names (i.e. no running service)? 17a.Do you charge for reservation/registration of names? b.If so, is it a one off fee, an annual subscription or both? c.How much is the fee? 18a.Do you remove unused domain names? b.If so, how do you define an unused domain? 19. Do you think that the current system you operate will be changed over the next 12 months? 20. Do you accept requests for domains from providers only, from anyone or from a different group only? 21. What resources are allocated to the administration of the domain? 22. Do you have any automation of the registration/delegation process? From guyd at pipex.net Mon Oct 23 17:24:28 1995 From: guyd at pipex.net (Guy Davies) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:24:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: list of European/Southern & Eastern Mediterranean countries Message-ID: Hi All, This is the list of Countries to which I have sent the questionnaire. It is based on the list in The Whole Internet... and includes those countries in Europe, on the Eastern and Southern Coast of the Mediterranean and those I recognised from the former Soviet Union. 'al','dz','ad','am','at','az','by','be','ba','bg','hr','cy','cz','dk','eg','ee', 'fo','fi','fr','ge','de','gi','gr','gl','hu','is','ie','il','it','kz','kg','lv', 'lb','ly','li','lt','lu','mk','mt','md','mc','ma','nl','no','pl','pt','ro','ru', 'sm','sk','si','su','es','se','ch','tj','tn','tr','tm','ua','uk','uz','va','yu' If anyone knows of a country I have missed, please do not be offended. Tell me who it is and I will send the SOA a copy of the questionnaire. :-) 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 guyd at pipex.net Mon Oct 23 16:38:22 1995 From: guyd at pipex.net (Guy Davies) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 15:38:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: DNS Questionnaire Message-ID: Dear Colleague, As part of the efforts of the DNS working group at RIPE to have a better understanding of the usage of the domain name service in Europe and the South and Eastern Mediterranean, I have been asked to prepare and distribute this questionnaire. Please take a few minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire. The responses will be collated and the results will be made public on the WWW. Initially, this is likely to be on my personal web pages (http://www.pipex.net/people/guyd) but I hope to find space on the RIPE web server for this important information. I would be grateful if the SOA for any top level domains with neutral subdomains (e.g. co.at) would either answer for all the neutral subdomains or distribute the questionnaire to the SOA for each of the neutral subdomains. The more accurate and complete the information, the better. Thankyou very much for your time. 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 -------------- next part -------------- DNS Questionnaire ================= 1. Who defines your policies? 2. How do you establish your naming policies? 3. What legal status, if any, do your decisions/policies have? 4a. Would you register sub.tld (e.g. co.uk, ac.uk etc)? b. Do you have geographic subdomains in the tld (e.g. state.tld, county.tld)? 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? 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)? e. If so, how do you split your tld? 5a. Would you register domain.tld (e.g. microsoft.uk)? b. Would you register domain.sub.tld (e.g. microsoft.co.uk)? 6a. Do you allow individuals to register names or just organisations? b. If you differentiate between individuals and organisations, what are your criteria? 7a. Do you require proof of identity? b. If so, how do you prove the identity of a requestor? 8. Do you register domains only for organisations/individuals located in your country or do you allow anyone to register in your tld? 9a. Do you allow a single organisation to register more than one domain? b. If so, do you limit the number of domains registered by a single organisation? 10a.To whom would you allocate well known names like digital.tld/ digital.sub.tld? b.What criteria do you use when deciding whether or not to allow a name? 11a.How do you arbitrate between two or more claims to the same name? b.Who is responsible for the arbitration? 12a.Do you allow the registration of geographical names (cities, countries, rivers, etc)? b.If so, would you register one for an individual organisation? 13a.Do you have any names which may not be registered (e.g. names in bad taste, names of protocols, etc)? 14a.Do you run secondary nameservice for subdomains of the tld? b.If so, is this optional/mandatory and do you charge for the service? 15a.Do you check for a running nameserver at the time of request? b.Do you check for a running nameserver at regular intervals after the name has been delegated? 16. Do you allow the reservation of names (i.e. no running service)? 17a.Do you charge for reservation/registration of names? b.If so, is it a one off fee, an annual subscription or both? c.How much is the fee? 18a.Do you remove unused domain names? b.If so, how do you define an unused domain? 19. Do you think that the current system you operate will be changed over the next 12 months? 20. Do you accept requests for domains from providers only, from anyone or from a different group only? 21. What resources are allocated to the administration of the domain? 22. Do you have any automation of the registration/delegation process? Additions to original questionnaire 4c, 4d Christian Panigl (VUCC - ACOnet) From egoshin at ihep.su Mon Oct 23 22:30:04 1995 From: egoshin at ihep.su (Leonid A.Yegoshin) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 00:30:04 +0300 (GMT+3:00) Subject: DNS Questionnaire References: Message-ID: Dear Guy, I think it will be beautifull to repeat questionary in normal ASCII. I have doubts that anybody can decode BASE-64 by simply way. At least I have not such program, and we in Russia don't use MIME mailers (yet ?). Thank you for your efforts, - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22 From zsako at banknet.net Tue Oct 24 11:40:40 1995 From: zsako at banknet.net (Janos Zsako) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 11:40:40 +0100 Subject: Final version of BIND Message-ID: <9510241040.AA26292@banknet.banknet.net> Hello everybody, You probably remember the discussion at the 22nd RIPE meeting about trying to get a "final" version of BIND, that could be recommended for everybody to use. It seems it is not possible yet. :( Regards, Janos ----- Begin Included Message ----- From paul at vix.com Tue Oct 24 06:35:57 1995 From: paul at vix.com (Paul A Vixie) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 22:35:57 -0700 Subject: Latest version of BIND Message-ID: >Does anybody know about the release date for the FINAL version of >bind-4.9.3. If so, please email it to me at ali at protosoft.com. there will be at least another beta. -- Paul Vixie La Honda, CA "Illegitimibus non carborundum." pacbell!vixie!paul ----- End Included Message ----- From bonito at nis.garr.it Fri Oct 27 15:29:00 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 15:29:00 MET Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg Message-ID: <199510271429.PAA03414@re.nis.garr.it> Better late than never... Here are the drafts minutes scribed by Benoit Grange and edited by me. Please send corrections/additions to the list before 951110. ---------- ---------- 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------------ DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT RIPE 22 DNS Working Group minutes Amsterdam 12 October 1995 Chairman: Antonio Blasco Bonito (ABB) Scribe: Benoit Grange (BG) 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 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] 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. ------------------------------- A European 'TLD' forum might be useful, and the first move should be to collect how TLD management is done over Europe. Different countries have different policies, etc. Some multinational company which wants to create a bunch of domains in different countries needs more information on how this can be done and who should be contacted. The working group decided to set up a questionnaire and Guy Davies (GD) collected a lot of 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 hostmaster at cwi.nl Fri Oct 27 16:37:45 1995 From: hostmaster at cwi.nl (NL Naming Authority) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:37:45 +0100 Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: "Your message of Fri, 27 Oct 95 15:29:00 MET " <199510271429.PAA03414@re.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9510271537.AA14471=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> A European 'TLD' forum might be useful, and the first move should be to collect how TLD management is done over Europe. Different countries have different policies, etc. There's no need to collect such information: see below. Some multinational company which wants to create a bunch of domains in different countries needs more information on how this can be done and who should be contacted. In that case they simply ask the contact person for the top level domain(s) involved and they'll get the document with the conditions. But they should count on the document being available *only* in the national language, with no authoritative translation being or ever being made available in any other language. This will be the case in particular in those countries where e.g. a prerequisite is that a domain requestor be registered with some official body like a Chamber of Commerce in the country. Political questions like how the conditions are or have been established are irrelevant for companies, providers, or anyone else requesting a domain registration. To put it another way: such questions won't be answered. -hostmaster From bonito at nis.garr.it Fri Oct 27 17:32:15 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 17:32:15 MET Subject: list of European/Southern & Eastern Mediterranean countries In-Reply-To: ; from "Guy Davies" at Oct 23, 95 4:24 pm Message-ID: <199510271632.RAA03709@re.nis.garr.it> Guy, > Hi All, > > This is the list of Countries to which I have sent the questionnaire. It > is based on the list in The Whole Internet... and includes those > countries in Europe, on the Eastern and Southern Coast of the > Mediterranean and those I recognised from the former Soviet Union. > > 'al','dz','ad','am','at','az','by','be','ba','bg','hr','cy','cz','dk','eg','ee', > 'fo','fi','fr','ge','de','gi','gr','gl','hu','is','ie','il','it','kz','kg','lv', > 'lb','ly','li','lt','lu','mk','mt','md','mc','ma','nl','no','pl','pt','ro','ru', > 'sm','sk','si','su','es','se','ch','tj','tn','tr','tm','ua','uk','uz','va','yu' > > If anyone knows of a country I have missed, please do not be offended. > Tell me who it is and I will send the SOA a copy of the questionnaire. :-) > > 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 Well done, but I remember that in order to rely on a commonly accepted list during the working group it was agreed to consider the countries listed in the RIPE hostcount. Another issue: since sometimes the SOA contacts are unreliable I suggest you to send the questionnaire also to the contacts listed in the RIPE database for each TLD. For example the UK domain list as follows: domain: uk descr: Top level domain for the United Kingdom admin-c: WB81 tech-c: JS737 zone-c: JS737 nserver: NS1.CS.UCL.AC.UK nserver: SPARKY.ARL.MIL nserver: SUN.MHS-RELAY.AC.UK nserver: NS.EU.NET nserver: NS.UU.NET sub-dom: ac mod co remarks: fully-managed changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 951025 source: RIPE person: Dr Willie Black address: UKERNA address: Atlas Centre address: Chilton address: Bidcot address: Oxfordshire address: 0X11 0QS address: ENGLAND phone: +44 235 445880 e-mail: W.Black at UKERNA.AC.UK e-mail: uk-admin-contact at UKERNA.AC.UK nic-hdl: WB81 changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 951025 source: RIPE person: John Seymour address: ULCC address: 20 Guilford Street, address: London address: WC1N 1DZ phone: +44 171 405 8400 x315 fax-no: +44 171 242 1845 e-mail: j.seymour at noc.ulcc.ac.uk e-mail: john at NOSC.JA.NET e-mail: nosc at NOSC.JA.NET nic-hdl: JS737 changed: hostmaster at nic.ja.net 951012 changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 951025 source: RIPE ---------- ---------- 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 Fri Oct 27 18:02:59 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 18:02:59 MET Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: <9510271537.AA14471=piet@kraai.cwi.nl>; from "NL Naming Authority" at Oct 27, 95 4:37 pm Message-ID: <199510271702.SAA03776@re.nis.garr.it> > > A European 'TLD' forum might be useful, and the first move > should be to collect how TLD management is done over Europe. > Different countries have different policies, etc. > There's no need to collect such information: see below. > > Some multinational company which wants to create a bunch of > domains in different countries needs more information on how > this can be done and who should be contacted. > In that case they simply ask the contact person for > the top level domain(s) involved and they'll get the > document with the conditions. But they should count > on the document being available *only* in the national > language, with no authoritative translation being or > ever being made available in any other language. This > will be the case in particular in those countries > where e.g. a prerequisite is that a domain requestor > be registered with some official body like a Chamber > of Commerce in the country. Political questions like > how the conditions are or have been established are > irrelevant for companies, providers, or anyone else > requesting a domain registration. To put it another > way: such questions won't be answered. > > > -hostmaster I take this as a suggestion to correct the minutes: actually the main reason to collect such information which emerged during the WG was to help the TLD administrators in their task by knowing how other countries do that and having the possibility to keep themselves aligned to the mean behaviour if they wish, in order to reduce as much as possible disputes about registration requests. ---------- ---------- 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 hostmaster at cwi.nl Mon Oct 30 11:25:50 1995 From: hostmaster at cwi.nl (NL Naming Authority) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:25:50 +0100 Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: "Your message of Fri, 27 Oct 95 18:02:59 MET " <199510271702.SAA03776@re.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9510301025.AA17562=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> I take this as a suggestion to correct the minutes That's one thing. Another purpose the message was meant for is to make clear that *only* technical issues in the questionnaire will be answered. actually the main reason to collect such information which emerged during the WG was to help the TLD administrators in their task by knowing how other countries do that and having the possibility to keep themselves aligned to the mean behaviour if they wish, in order to reduce as much as possible disputes about registration requests. I'd say that TLD administrators are very capable of communicating. So in case they need to align anything with other TLD administrators, they can be assumed to know the way to contact those other administrators. The only thing that *might* be useful in this context is an up-to-date list of (e-mail addresses of) TLD administrators; but the InterNIC in fact already has that information in its whois service. And spreading the same info over different entities without there being any automatic update procedure between them will only lead to problems: one easily tends to forget in which places certain information is stored, so the info in one or more of those places may get out of date. So please keep such information in *one* place only! And about "mean behaviour": it's an illusion that such a thing exists. Some countries have very strict rules, others are much more "liberal", to put it mildly. -hostmaster From liman at sunet.se Mon Oct 30 12:10:10 1995 From: liman at sunet.se (Lars-Johan Liman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:10:10 +0100 Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:25:50 +0100." <9510301025.AA17562=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Message-ID: <199510301110.MAA00230@fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se> > I take this as a suggestion to correct the minutes > That's one thing. Another purpose the message was > ... > -hostmaster Would you please identify yourself??! I have rather bad feelings about having to follow a discussion where one part is a ghost named "hostmaster". It's quite OK to use that *mail address* in a Reply-To: field, and maybe even in the From: field, but in that case I definitely think you should identify yourself as a person in the signature. Best regards, /Liman #------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman ! Internet: liman at sunet.se # Ebone/NORDUnet/SUNET Operations Centre ! BITNET : LIMAN at SEARN # Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden ! HTTP : //www.sunet.se/~liman # ! Voice : Int +46 8 - 790 65 60 #------------------------------------------------------------------------- From hostmaster at cwi.nl Mon Oct 30 12:21:30 1995 From: hostmaster at cwi.nl (NL Naming Authority) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:21:30 +0100 Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: "Your message of Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:10:10 +0100 " <199510301110.MAA00230@fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se> Message-ID: <9510301121.AA17729=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Would you please identify yourself??! I have rather bad feelings about having to follow a discussion where one part is a ghost named "hostmaster". The NL Naming Authority is not a ghost, but a *function*. And it doesn't really matter who in a particular case is speaking on behalf of the NL Naming Authority: the official e-mail address hostmaster at cwi.nl is linked to the function and is always used in the From: field when the message is an official message/reply/statement by the NL Naming Authority. Like in this case. Besides, the standards require that when the From: line differs from the e-mail address of the person who sent the mail, a Sender: line be present. And that's the case in all mails with hostmaster at cwi.nl in the From: line. That's what we call "implicit identification". -hostmaster From David.Kessens at ripe.net Mon Oct 30 12:27:01 1995 From: David.Kessens at ripe.net (David.Kessens at ripe.net) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:27:01 +0100 (MET) Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: <199510271429.PAA03414@re.nis.garr.it> from "Antonio_Blasco Bonito" at Oct 27, 95 03:29:00 pm Message-ID: <9510301127.AA26280@rijp.ripe.net> Hi Blasco, Just a small typo... : > Antonio_Blasco Bonito writes : > > 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 It should say (or I should have said) 'rev-srv:', although the tool has no problem with this typo ... I made the same mistake myself too often so the tool will accept both. Kind regards, David Kessens From liman at sunet.se Mon Oct 30 12:55:15 1995 From: liman at sunet.se (Lars-Johan Liman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:55:15 +0100 Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:21:30 +0100." <9510301121.AA17729=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Message-ID: <199510301155.MAA00322@fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se> > The NL Naming Authority is not a ghost, but a *function*. I realise that, of course. > And it doesn't really matter who in a particular case is > speaking on behalf of the NL Naming Authority: Yes, it does, or rather, it matters that I know whom I'm addressing when I write this *reply* message. I want to know if I'm addressing the same person that I addressed in the previous message regarding the same matter, or if I have to describe the entire problem once again, which is often the case with e.g. tax authorities, which usually implement the same principle. As I said - I have no problems using a function alias as a technical means of reaching you, and the mail alias is an important way of signalling which hat I want you to wear when you read the message, but I want to know with whom I'm dealing. As an analogy, consider the case when you call by phone e.g. to the tax authorities. You dial a number to their swichboard (the *function* number), but you would probably be a bit annoyed if the person that you finally got connected to didn't present him-/herself with his/her name, wouldn't you? And when you called them again a week later, you would still call the switchboard number, but you would address yourself to the person you talked to the week before, who presumably knows the case. Furthermore, if I would like to move this conversation to another media, e.g. phone, I can easily get a phone number that presumably reaches you in one way or the other, but getting a phone number for "hostmaster" is somewhat more difficult. > the official e-mail address hostmaster at cwi.nl is linked to the > function and is always used in the From: field when the message is > an official message/reply/statement by the NL Naming Authority. > Like in this case. ... which I have no problem with. > Besides, the standards require that when the From: line differs from > the e-mail address of the person who sent the mail, a Sender: line > be present. And that's the case in all mails with hostmaster at cwi.nl > in the From: line. That's what we call "implicit identification". True. My mail agent unfortunately filters this out (my fault, my problem), therefore I missed this information, and I hereby apologize for the "assault". My point of view still stands, as a principle - one should identify oneself, even if one represents a "function" - but I see now when I take a close look that you did just that in a perfectly good manner. Again, my apologies. Cheers, /Liman From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Mon Oct 30 13:11:40 1995 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:11:40 +0100 Subject: Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg In-Reply-To: "Your message of Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:55:15 +0100 " <199510301155.MAA00322@fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se> Message-ID: <9510301211.AA17961=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Yes, it does, or rather, it matters that I know whom I'm addressing when I write this *reply* message. I want to know if I'm addressing the same person that I addressed in the previous message regarding the same matter, or if I have to describe the entire problem once again, which is often the case with e.g. tax authorities I wouldn't compare naming authorities with tax authorities... :-) After all the latter category costs you a *lot* more money than the former category... :-( As I said - I have no problems using a function alias as a technical means of reaching you, and the mail alias is an important way of signalling which hat I want you to wear when you read the message, but I want to know with whom I'm dealing. OK, clear. Besides, the standards require that when the From: line differs from the e-mail address of the person who sent the mail, a Sender: line be present. And that's the case in all mails with hostmaster at cwi.nl in the From: line. That's what we call "implicit identification". True. My mail agent unfortunately filters this out (my fault, my problem), therefore I missed this information Ah, I see. Anyway, all messages about this issue were sent by undersigned, but I would like to emphasize again that they were sent in the function of NL Naming Authority and therefore should not be (mis)taken as my personal opinion. Piet Beertema From bonito at nis.garr.it Tue Oct 31 09:37:25 1995 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 9:37:25 MET Subject: A proposal from RIPE DNS Working Group Message-ID: <199510310837.JAA01184@re.nis.garr.it> Dear Artur Romao, 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] {...} ---------- ---------- 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 e07 at nikhef.nl Tue Oct 31 12:29:17 1995 From: e07 at nikhef.nl (Eric Wassenaar) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:29:17 +0100 Subject: A proposal from RIPE DNS Working Group In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 31 Oct 95 9:37:25 MET" Message-ID: <9510311129.MA04240@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> > 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. [] host -C -A -L 1 zonename is what you really want to do. This covers most common problems. If that comes out clean, you are probably safe ... -- Eric Wassenaar P.S. For those of you who want to stay up to date: [] host -V Version 951024