Olivier, can you please, if not done so earlier, please send this for publication as an I-D. Patrik On Jun 6, 2005, at 15:39, Kim Davies wrote:
Dear all,
Olivier Guillard of AFNIC has described in the attached document the details of their attempts to redelegate their domains. It is a useful summary of the issue as they experienced it.
kim -- Kim Davies, Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries Avenue Louise 327, B-1050 Brussels; Tel. +32 2 627 5550
From: Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr> Date: June 6, 2005 14:53:21 GMT+02:00 To: Marcel Schneider <schneide@switch.ch> Cc: fm@centr.org Subject: [centr-fm] Re: [centr-ga] FWD: IANA TLD delegation issue
Marcel and colleagues,
as the AFNIC multinamming story with IANA was quoted within exchanges, we felt necessary to provide the community with a report to clarify what happened.
Find it here included.
As there is no standard format to communicate over the TLD community this kind of reports, I have choosen the RFC one. It is not designed for this kind of communications, but I felt that it was the less unappropriate to use (-> it does exist and it is known by ccTLDs).
This is a raw draft: I would higly appreciate *ANY* suggestions and inputs.
This issue will be discussed over the next CENTR GA in Trondheim: http://www.centr.org/docs/2005/05/centr-ga26-agenda.pdf
Best regards,
le vendredi 13 mai à 15 H 58 , Marcel Schneider a ecrit :
Since this is a real technical concern to us all. Propose we ask IANA to clarify.
Marcel
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:50:00 +0100 From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> To: dns-wg@ripe.net Subject: [dns-wg] IANA TLD delegation issue
Here is a copy of the mail that has just been sent to IANA in followup to the discussion during last week's RIPE meeting. My thanks to those who have helped draft this message so promptly. I will keep the WG informed of developments.
Dear Colleagues,
This note follows a discussion at the DNS Working Group during last week's RIPE meeting. Doug was unable to take part in this discussion because he was called away early. Therefore we have sent you this message so that we can clear up any possible misunderstandings and hopefully avoid invoking more formal mechanisms.
The RIPE DNS Working Group is concerned about some aspects of the current practice regarding IANA TLD operations. In particular the problems encountered by AFNIC last month are unsettling.
It is our understanding that IANA has recently stopped accepting certain updates to the DNS root zone. The current practice now appears to require each particular network address used in glue address RRs to have one unique DNS name. This requirement is new: multiple names already exist in the root zone for some name server addresses. There is no technical reason in the DNS protocols preventing this practice.
Important technical and operational goals can require TLD operators to use different names for the same address. The most obvious of these is more efficient name compression to make room for additional data in responses. Multiple names for the same address can reduce the amount of co-ordination required in case of name server address changes.
We do not understand why this requirement has been introduced or the process by which it was agreed. The RIPE DNS Working Group is disappointed that this change appears to have been carried out by IANA without prior consultation or discussion. We would like to know rationale for this policy and the mechanism which led to its introduction. We'd appreciate any clarifications from you before Friday, May 20th.
Regards
..... chairs RIPE DNS WG
------- End of Forwarded Message
-- Olivier
<draft-guillard-multi-naming.txt> <draft-guillard-multi-naming.html>