[dns-wg] Request for trusted party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

> On 25 Jul 2016, at 16:56, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zwart at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> Thanks for the quick response.
> 
> On 16/07/25 17:42 , Jim Reid wrote:
>> The above URL doesn’t say very much. Could you please provide some more details?
> 
> As expressed on the page mentioned above, the intention of the process
> is that interested parties respond to the email address quoted to be
> sent the detailed RfP document.

Well, it would be nice if the web page actually said something like “interested parties can get the RFP documention by contacting the NCC at...”. :-)

BTW, it makes sense not to publish the RFP bumf at this stage in case it encourages members of the WG to try to micro-manage what is an implementation/operational matter for the NCC. Though in the interests of openness and transparency it might be worthwhile publishing that document once the service provider(s) has been chosen.

> I'd invite you to do so if you are interested to provide services. :)

Hell no! I have enough trouble looking after my own zones without looking after the NCC’s too. :-)

> We have tried to make these requirements as clear as possible, including
> distinctions between mandatory and optional elements, and we have
> documented those in the document that will be sent on request.

Great! It’s a pity this isn’t mentioned in the announcement.

> It would indeed be unrealistic to expect detailed responses based on the
> limited information that is on the mentioned web page. That is clearly
> not our expectation.

I’m glad to hear that Romeo. Though until your recent clarification email, I fear you may well have given prospective bidders that impression.

>> I also think it’s a bit optimistic to give bidders just three weeks to prepare their responses. More so during peak holiday season. Why the rush?
> 
> We are expecting experienced and professional service providers to
> respond, who have the required infrastructure and service machinery in
> place and for whom three weeks will be a suitable period to respond.

It’s always fun to make bidders sweat a bit and watch them squirm. :-) I’ve done it myself more than a few times when running RFPs. However you may well be pushing things to get good quality bids in such a short time-frame when just about everyone will be on holiday. I’d like to be proven wrong about that.