[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 ]
Doug Barton
dougb at dougbarton.us
Tue Nov 18 18:40:30 CET 2014
On 11/18/14 6:38 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 18/11/2014 11:16, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >> Let's have RIPE.INT removed. > > tbh, I see no reason to remove ripe.int. You don't find the fact that it's been out of scope for INT for over a decade to be compelling? We removed ip6.int for similar reasons, and that actually had a purpose at one point in the past. > If ICANN has concerns about the delegation, then they should raise them > formally with the RIPE NCC. It's been raised informally a non-zero number of times in the past. Why do you think that creating a kerfuffle over something simple is the right way to go? There seems to be a fairly large consensus that the domain should be removed, and Jim has asked some intelligent operational questions about its use that IMO should be answered. Doug
- 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 ]