[dns-wg] RIPE NCC DNSSEC trust anchors
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] RIPE NCC DNSSEC trust anchors
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] RIPE NCC DNSSEC trust anchors
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Nov 18 12:40:12 CET 2014
Niall O'Reilly wrote: > 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. I do share this pov. The NCC is not a result of an international treaty and the RIPE Community is even less so :-) >>>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. Same here, and as soon as possible. Imho it is also an issue of corporate identity, but that's off topic here. >>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! I don't have an opinion on this one, as I am mostly DNSsec illiterate :-/ Wilfried > ATB > Niall > >
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] RIPE NCC DNSSEC trust anchors
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] RIPE NCC DNSSEC trust anchors
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]