[dns-wg] Tweaks to RIPE 663: Secondary DNS Service for ccTLD Operators

Hi Shane,

On 16/05/26 14:33 , Shane Kerr wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Anand just mentioned at his presentation at RIPE 72 that the RIPE NCC
> is now implementing RIPE 663:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-663
> 
> There were a couple of suggestions for tweaks to that:
> 
> 1. Gaurab and I think that there should be an exemption for ccTLD who
>    do not currently have IPv6 service. (There are a few tens of ccTLD
>    who do not yet have IPV6, and I would like the RIPE NCC to be
>    able to help them get IPv6 service if they want it.)

It is quite possible that you have come up against use cases that I am
overlooking, but's not really clear to me what the added benefit would
be of providing IPv6 DNS resolution for a country's TLD if there is no
IPv6 support in that country and the ccTLD in question doesn't support it.

> 2. Gaurab mentioned that there are some ccTLD who have 3 servers but
>    they are all in the same network. The document should be flexible in
>    order to insure network diversity.

This flexibility is already provided by the current text of the document
where it states as the second criterion:

  "Number and diversity of other name servers
   If there is sufficient diversity and there are more than three other
   secondary name servers for the zone already, the operator of the zone
   is considered to be no longer in the start-up phase of their
   operations."

Obviously if all servers are in a single network it is fair to say that
diversity is less than sufficient.

> I know the document is less than 6 months old and just being
> implemented now, but maybe we can revise it to include these two
> changes? I'm happy to do a quick pass at text for this if that makes
> sense.

It is rather unfortunate that the proposed changes were not suggested in
earlier phases of the discussion. The document has been under discussion
in the WG for a very long time.

Following the guidelines of the working group, we (the NCC) have
recently started reviewing eligibility of ccTLDs based on the existing
document text. If the document moves back to a 'limbo-state' based on
renewed discussion in the WG that makes it very difficult for the NCC to
proceed.

Kind regards,
Romeo



> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Shane
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20160526/b1d307cd/attachment.sig>