[enum-wg] Italian Nameservers for 9.3.164.arpa. dead?
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Jan 21 20:14:08 CET 2008
On Jan 21, 2008, at 16:55, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Would Ripe have the possibility to (temporarly) remove the > delegation, if such situations occur? Personally speaking, I think this a very bad idea. It makes some sort of sense from a technical and operational perspective. But it's the start of a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what criteria justify pulling a delegation? And why only for e164.arpa? IIUC, the RIRs don't yank the delegations for reverse zones that have broken DNS. And IANA doesn't do this for TLDs that have lame delegations or dead name servers. I also think it's extremely unwise to involve the NCC in any sort of subjective or qualitative decisions about the contents of e164.arpa. This touches on prickly topics like National Sovereignty that are best avoided. IMO the NCC should stick to the remit that's documented in the exchanges of letters between IAB, ITU and the NCC. In other words, it pretty much just does what the ITU asks them to do. :-) As John says, a mechanism could be developed to notify a Tier-1 registry (and ITU?) about a broken ENUM delegation. But this is probably a discussion for the Powers That Be. It wouldn't hurt I suppose for this WG to suggest a suitable mechanism. Any volunteers? BTW, does anyone ask Verisign to pull the plug on lamedelegation.com (say) because its broken delegation is causing operational problems for their mail server? If not, why is a different approach necessary in e164.arpa for ENUM-aware SIP servers?
[ enum-wg Archives ]