Hello, On 22.01 02:47, Sascha Lenz wrote:
[I didn't remove ncc-services-wg and db-wg lists since it's also a policy and db-issue]
Olaf Kolkman wrote:
[...]
The reverse delegation policy has been revised, relaxing the terms under which reverse delegation will be serviced and providing the framework to implement the authorisation mechanism described above.
The draft "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region" can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/reverse-draft-200401.html
We would like to invite your comments on this. Please discuss these proposals on the DNS Working Group mailing list. [...]
AFAIR there was no objection to this proposal as long as it comes to relaxing the policy itself. I think we could implement the new draft ASAP.
I agree, that should run already ;-)
The best part in my eyes is, that with the new policy and the new authorisation system (mnt-domains ect.), every address space holder can again request/update their rDNS delegations on their own (given the correct db authorisation) - as long as they know what they do. (At least I think that's intentionally, since all the parts relating to only LIRs can hand in requests have been removed :-) )
I only have one question - do I need to use mntner object for reverse delegation? If so, couldn't that be just left on persons/roles? So we (DNS team) wouldn't need two objects to delegate DNS for our address space. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.