Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
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....
At 11:47 +0100 5/24/05, Jim Reid wrote:
I wonder if the WG would like to pursue these?
I don't think this would be energy well spent. Has there been a tangible loss (or unrecoverable [cost])? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 11:47 +0100 5/24/05, Jim Reid wrote:
I wonder if the WG would like to pursue these?
I don't think this would be energy well spent. Has there been a tangible loss (or unrecoverable [cost])?
Yes but surely we should be concerned that they are using acceptable procedures to ensure that more serious problems/losses will not occur in the future. Brett -- Brett Carr Ripe Network Coordination Centre System Engineer -- Operations Group Singel 258 Amsterdam NL
On 24 May 2005, at 11:47, Jim Reid wrote:
If there's consensus in the WG that this matter needs further action,
Yes. It's not good enough to declare the problem fixed and just brush the procedural issues under the carpet. /Niall
Jim dns-wg-admin@ripe.net wrote on 26/05/2005 22:45:14:
On 24 May 2005, at 11:47, Jim Reid wrote:
If there's consensus in the WG that this matter needs further action,
Yes. It's not good enough to declare the problem fixed and just brush the procedural issues under the carpet.
I agree. Unfortunately there is the possibility that this an indicator of serious underlying problems in the way IANA operates, and so it needs to be pursued. Jay
Jim, We're happy to provide answers to these questions. Given that Monday is a holiday in the US, may I suggest that we will provide answers to the questions listed on Tuesday 31 May unless you or the WG indicate that more time is needed for you to formulate the list? Regards, Doug -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Jim Reid wrote:
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....
Dear Jim, 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"). 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 : http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/index.html 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
participants (7)
-
Brett Carr -
Doug Barton -
Edward Lewis -
Jay Daley -
Jim Reid -
Niall O'Reilly -
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC