On Monday, 30 May 2005, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC writes: Dear all
as one of those that was looking for a path to operationaly circumvent this new IANA policy, may I thank the dns-wg that have clearly stated with others that "there is no technical reason in the DNS protocols preventing this practice (aka: "use different [NS] names for the same address").
To support Olivier's point: we also were relieved to hear from Doug Barton that no such policy was introduced. My question to Jim and maybe Jaap is: how did you became aware that ICANN/ IANA would or already has introduced such measures ? Unfortunately we at SWITCH do not hear the grass growing and were catched by surprise. It is important that we all fully understand the issue to learn from it. Marcel
The questions you raise now are very valid :
[1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved?
[2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed?
[3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem recurring?
[4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process are properly communicated to its stakeholders?
[5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not?
BTW, above the specific multinamming issue, they are now among the core ones that need to be taken seriously by the DNS community in my view.
I have looked in the dns-wg charter :
It is not perfectly clear for me what kind of contribution you are waiting for to help moving forward, and the kind of actions you see as conceivable to be undertaken by the dns-wg ?
Thanks,
Olivier
le mardi 24 mai à 11 H 47 , Jim Reid a ecrit :
You'll all have seen the response from Doug Barton confirming that the technical problem has been fixed. It is now permitted to have multiple names for the same IP address in a TLD delegation from the root. That particular aspect of the discussion should be considered closed IMO because the problem has been resolved. However, there are some other things that I'd like the WG to consider and discuss. These concern the process and transparency issues that have been highlighted by this problem.
I wonder if the WG would like to pursue these?
In particular, I'd like the WG to consider if we should pursue answers to the following questions:
[1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved?
[2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed?
[3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem recurring?
[4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process are properly communicated to its stakeholders?
[5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not?
If anyone here has more questions about this incident, please post them. If there's consensus in the WG that this matter needs further action, then we need to decide what the next steps, if any, should be. I'd welcome a discussion and comments.
It's now over to you, the list members....
-- Olivier