[dns-wg] Last Call: Secondary service on ns.ripe.net for reverse delegations

Dear WG,

at the Tallinn meeting, Brett Carr gave a presentation on DNS operations at
the RIPE NCC. In his report a proposal regarding the DNS name service for
/16 reverse was made. See <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/r54-minutes.html>,
item [D] for the minutes and slide 12 of the presentation
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/DNS_update.pdf>
for details.  This resulted in action item 54.1 on the NCC to solicit feedback
on the proposal.  Brett started a thread on the DNS WG mailing list on May, 14th
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/dns-wg/2007/msg00107.html>
(Message-ID: <4A6256C3-97B5-4415-BC93-9A2978A01A20 at ripe.net>).

Summary:

  To eliminate an inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies, where
  /16 reverse on ns.ripe.net is mandatory for v4 and there's no such
  policy for v6, three options were given:

  1) Make ns.ripe.net mandatory on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations
  2) Make ns.ripe.net optional on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations
  3) Discontinue the secondary service on ns.ripe.net for new delegations.

  The NCC's preference was (2).

The thread started as mentioned above saw 8 replies until June. Those who
expressed an opinion were in favour of going forward with (2).

Since the thread hasn't been active for a while, the WG chairs would like
to issue a Last Call on this topic.  Please take these remarks into
consideration:

  o While cost of service has been mentioned, detailed discussion would
    be a topic for the NCC Services WG.  For now we assume that the cost
    structure (essentially: no additional cost) will remain unmodified.

  o When the secondary service is "optional" this should be read in a
    symmetric way, i.e. not only the /16 maintainer can choose to opt-out,
    but also the NCC could, on reasonable operational grounds, terminate
    or not activate support for a particular zone.

Now, finally, even though this issue is not subject to the PDP, this is a
Last Call until

                Friday, 31 August 2007, 12:00 UTC

Please voice your opinion, the default will be to continue with (2) above.
We'd like to ask the NCC to prepare an implementation plan after this date.

-Peter Koch
 [DNS WG co-chair]