[dns-wg] Delegation checking policy/procedure at ARIN

Dear Stephane,
thank you for your remarks. I must say that I did not validate
many ".fr" due to the AFNIC resales organization, naming structure
and my own users orientations, so my experience with your (our
fr) program is limited (and no-experience since IDNA). But we
are talking about BPs and my point is certainly that the Registry
community should take advantage from AFNIC's efforts (may be
smoothing some rigidities - but maybe this has been done?). I
want to incitate this experience to be used when considerng BPs.
There is no reason when something good is made by some not
to tell it.

My other point is that such proposed BPs draft should be
reveiwable by the @large community(ies).
Thank you.
jfc


At 09:34 15/05/03, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:24:44PM +0200,
>  JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote
>  a message of 64 lines which said:
>
> > BPs should say that restrictions are to be documented both
> > in plain text and decribing case per case the tested reasons
> > of a denial so one can document when the testing is wrong.
>
>They are. Any one can see it by itself at http://zonecheck.nic.fr/v2/.
>
> > BPs should also say that the intended registration should
> > be valid when the denial of registration is due to its wrong
> > analysis of the registrant configuration. There is no reason
> > why the first come first served rule would defeated by an
> > error of the Registry.
>
>It is not (the ticket is not closed immediately when there is a
>configuration error).
>
> > BPs could say that the registry should provide its proposed
> > DNS configuration, so the Registrant could implement it to
> > get registered.
>
>For which software? BIND8, BIND9, nsd, PowerDNS?
>
> > Will you address IDNA?
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 06/05/03