[dns-wg] RIPE NCC DNSSEC trust anchors

At Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:22:09 +0000,
Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> On 17 Nov 2014, at 15:49, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zwart at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> > 3/ RIPE NCC has been assigned ripe.int in the early 2000's. We are
> > currently not using ripe.int, other than by redirecting to ripe.net. If
> > the community advises the RIPE NCC to request IANA to sign .int, we can
> > spend some effort on this, but we'd like to follow up on this separately.
> 
> I am not sure a request IANA to sign .int is worth doing any time
> soon. Signing .int will almost certainly be blocked by layer 9+
> issues until long after the dust has settled on the NTIA-IANA
> transition. Besides, the few voices on this thread that have
> mentioned ripe.int appear to be asking for it to be removed, not for
> it to be signed in a signed TLD. I think the WG needs to reach
> consensus on what should be done here.

  I'm reading that as a call from one of the co-chairs for (more)
  voices from the WG, so here's mine.

  Let's have RIPE.INT removed.

> > 4/ Ripen.cc is a historical artifact. RIPE NCC is not currently using it
> > and we are not planning any future use. Releasing the domain is an
> > operational decision that we may take in the future.
> 
> Just kill it! IMO the domain should get removed from DLV as soon as
> it is prudent to do so: which probably means immediately. ripen.cc
> can die on its renewal date. Though these too should be consensus
> decisions for the WG.

  Let's have RIPEN.CC removed also.

> The NCC needs to have a procedure to review its DLV entries --
> report to the WG once a year?

  Let's have this made part of the reporting routine.

> -- and an exit strategy for the
> cruft^W names and keys it has there.

  Let's have this too!

  ATB
  Niall