New draft charter for the RIPE DNS WG
Brad Knowles brad.knowles at skynet.be
Fri Jul 12 15:36:17 CEST 2002
At 9:45 AM +0200 2002/07/12, Peter Koch wrote: > what do you mean by "RIPE requirement" in this context? I do not see > any means by which the NCC, the WG or RIPE could or should try to "enforce" > anything in that field. Well, at least for those zones that are delegated from the RIPE NCC, warnings could be sent to the delegees, and if those warnings are not acted on and the problem solved (within a specified period of time), then the delegation could be removed -- no information is better than bad information. > Anyway, the NCC already contributes to this BCP by providing DNS secondary > service for TLDs (even more recently). For the TLDs, notices could be sent to the owners of the zone, as well as the owners of the problem servers, and requests could be made to the root server operators to de-list the problematical servers, or to otherwise request that they enforce the policies. If there aren't any complaint procedures to request this kind of action, and/or policies that the TLD zone administrators and TLD server operators are required to follow, then I would suggest that we could help create them and then work to get them implemented. > The aspect of topological diversity > is approached by the ``shared secondary servers(?)'' project, which I think > is led by DE-NIC under the umbrella of CENTR. So, should we try to learn > more about these efforts? That would be something we should learn more about, and perhaps provide any additional support or assistance that we can. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
[ dns-wg Archives ]