Niall O'Reilly wrote:
At Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:22:09 +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 15:49, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zwart@ripe.net> wrote:
3/ RIPE NCC has been assigned ripe.int in the early 2000's. We are currently not using ripe.int, other than by redirecting to ripe.net. If the community advises the RIPE NCC to request IANA to sign .int, we can spend some effort on this, but we'd like to follow up on this separately.
I am not sure a request IANA to sign .int is worth doing any time soon. Signing .int will almost certainly be blocked by layer 9+ issues until long after the dust has settled on the NTIA-IANA transition. Besides, the few voices on this thread that have mentioned ripe.int appear to be asking for it to be removed, not for it to be signed in a signed TLD. I think the WG needs to reach consensus on what should be done here.
I'm reading that as a call from one of the co-chairs for (more) voices from the WG, so here's mine.
Let's have RIPE.INT removed.
I do share this pov. The NCC is not a result of an international treaty and the RIPE Community is even less so :-)
4/ Ripen.cc is a historical artifact. RIPE NCC is not currently using it and we are not planning any future use. Releasing the domain is an operational decision that we may take in the future.
Just kill it! IMO the domain should get removed from DLV as soon as it is prudent to do so: which probably means immediately. ripen.cc can die on its renewal date. Though these too should be consensus decisions for the WG.
Let's have RIPEN.CC removed also.
Same here, and as soon as possible. Imho it is also an issue of corporate identity, but that's off topic here.
The NCC needs to have a procedure to review its DLV entries -- report to the WG once a year?
Let's have this made part of the reporting routine.
-- and an exit strategy for the cruft^W names and keys it has there.
Let's have this too!
I don't have an opinion on this one, as I am mostly DNSsec illiterate :-/ Wilfried
ATB Niall