Jim, On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:21, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
I think it should say:
"ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC"
I don't think it should say this either Antoin. :-( The NCC does not define the ENUM operators: its role in ENUM is strictly neutral. Strictly speaking, IAB chose the NCC as the ENUM Tier-0 registry and the National Administrations select their corresponding Tier-1 registry.
I suggest the following language/definition:
Critical Infrastructure Domain: a TLD listed in the IANA database (insert URL here), e164.arpa or any delegation of e164.arpa made according to the arrangements in place between RIPE NCC, IAB and ITU-T (insert url here).
When we were ediiting this document we had something very similar to this on the table but it was decided having the explicit url's in the document was a bad thing because if/when they changed it would break the policy. We figured the hostmasters at the NCC would know where to find the relevant definitive list and therefore it didn't need to be explicitly reffered to with a direct url in the document.
Then in the modified 6.9 for RIPE424 say something like
The organisation(s) applicable under this policy are operators of Critical Infrastructure Domains.
I'm uneasy about explicitly listing e164.arpa since this means the NCC would in principle be able to allocate resources to itself. This might not be wise. Another concern here is ICANN's plans for lots of new TLDs. Though I expect we'll be out of IPv4 space before those TLDs come on-line.
Well the intention of the policy is to allow Tier0 and Tier1 ENUM operators to receive the allocations so by definition yes this does mean the NCC can make an allocation to itself, but is this really a bad thing as long as there is a reaonable hard limit (in this case 4 /24's) after all there are other areas where the NCC has allocated address space to itself and I don't believe this has caused a problem.
And here's a wider question: do these allocations of /24s for infrastructure anycasting go to the registry operator or should they be linked to the domain name? ie If the registry for .nl or 1.3.e163.arpa moves from SIDN, do any anycast allocations for these domains stay with SIDN or would they go back to the NCC or get transferred to the new registry operator?
The intention of the policy is that they are allocated to the national operator of ENUM, so for example in the UK, UKEC would be given the allocations for ENUM who would then (hopefully) allow Nominet to use those allocations while they were the registry/dns operator, If/when UKEC decide to move the registry/dns operator to another entity they can then ask Nominet to stop announcing the prefixes so the new registry/dns operator can use them. If this isn't clear in the wording I would welcome an edit. Thanks Brett Carr Nominet