In line
-----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:14 PM To: Bernie Hoeneisen Cc: RIPE ENUM WG Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Italian Nameservers for 9.3.164.arpa. dead?
On Jan 21, 2008, at 16:55, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
Would Ripe have the possibility to (temporarly) remove the delegation, if such situations occur?
Personally speaking, I think this a very bad idea. It makes some sort of sense from a technical and operational perspective. But it's the start of a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what criteria justify pulling a delegation? And why only for e164.arpa? IIUC, the RIRs don't yank the delegations for reverse zones that have broken DNS. And IANA doesn't do this for TLDs that have lame delegations or dead name servers.
I also think it's extremely unwise to involve the NCC in any sort of subjective or qualitative decisions about the contents of e164.arpa. This touches on prickly topics like National Sovereignty that are best avoided. IMO the NCC should stick to the remit that's documented in the exchanges of letters between IAB, ITU and the NCC. In other words, it pretty much just does what the ITU asks them to do. :-)
I agree completely ... we've been there - done that. Even thinking of opening up that can of worms means someone gets to camp in Geneva for the duration and it isn't going to be me. There will be enough problems/issues when the Infrastructure ENUM documents arrive in Geneva shortly. It is my understanding that that an appropriate liaison statement on the Infrastructure ENUM documents from the IAB to ITU SG-2 is due before IETF Philadelphia.
As John says, a mechanism could be developed to notify a Tier-1 registry (and ITU?) about a broken ENUM delegation. But this is probably a discussion for the Powers That Be. It wouldn't hurt I suppose for this WG to suggest a suitable mechanism. Any volunteers?
I think the bigger question is, given the lack of economic progress and viability in e164.arpa deployments, does anyone care?
BTW, does anyone ask Verisign to pull the plug on lamedelegation.com (say) because its broken delegation is causing operational problems for their mail server? If not, why is a different approach necessary in e164.arpa for ENUM-aware SIP servers?