This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Thu Jun 13 10:40:20 CEST 2019

> On 12 Jun 2019, at 21:06, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> we don't really need this because it's not fixing a problem.

Indeed. There’s no problem here that needs fixing.

> ... the RIPE NCC's record for handling dns delegation over the years shows that they're doing a good job and unless this changes, the best thing to do would be to let them continue doing their job as they see fit.

+1.

The current mechanism is working just fine. It isn’t broken.

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ dns-wg Archives ]