DNSMON for enum zones
Hi, I was trying to RIPE NCC DNSMON service for our 0.2.4.e164.arpa and it was suggested to open this issue on enum-wg, since DNSMON is available only for TLDs according to current policies. I think it would be good idea to change that policy to include ENUM zones as well. Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
On 9 May 2007, at 09:54, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I was trying to RIPE NCC DNSMON service for our 0.2.4.e164.arpa and it was suggested to open this issue on enum-wg, since DNSMON is available only for TLDs according to current policies. I think it would be good idea to change that policy to include ENUM zones as well.
A good idea, though the policy may need to state that this is only offered for at the country code level, otherwise the policy may be loose enough to allow end-user zone monitoring through dnsmon. -- Andy Davidson - ( http://www.andyd.net/ )
Andy Davidson píše v St 09. 05. 2007 v 10:44 +0100:
On 9 May 2007, at 09:54, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I was trying to RIPE NCC DNSMON service for our 0.2.4.e164.arpa and it was suggested to open this issue on enum-wg, since DNSMON is available only for TLDs according to current policies. I think it would be good idea to change that policy to include ENUM zones as well.
A good idea, though the policy may need to state that this is only offered for at the country code level, otherwise the policy may be loose enough to allow end-user zone monitoring through dnsmon.
My formal proposal for change in agreement was: """ I propose to rephrase that term to "ccTLD and/or ENUM" and add "ccTLD" and "ENUM" definitions to 1.1.: ccTLD: A Top Level Domain as defined by IANA. ENUM: A delegated subdomain of e164.arpa as delegated by RIPE NCC. and change TLD Administrator to: The organisation(s) responsible for registry of a Top Level Domain, as recorded by IANA, or a ENUM Domain, as recorded by RIPE NCC. """ or something like that. These need to be changed in whole ripe-342. Just to note... there could be ENUM operator for country who is not TLD operator at the same time. One nice example (I can think of) is .AT and +43 - both are separated legal entities. Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
IMO, this issue straddles two WGs. The ENUM WG can (should?) look into operating requirements and recommendations for monitoring Tier-1 DNS infrastructure. But it should not make policy in this area as it encroaches on National Matters. ISTR the WG already has an open action item on this topic. Changing the DNSMON service -- or extending its scope -- is something for the NCC Services working group. Wearing my Board hat, I am extremely uncomfortable with the NCC straying from its core function (running an IP registry) by offering non-core services that could and should be provided by others. I hope DNSMON doesn't turn into a repeat of the current layer-9 issues with DNS hosting at the NCC.
Jim Reid píše v St 09. 05. 2007 v 12:58 +0100:
IMO, this issue straddles two WGs. The ENUM WG can (should?) look into operating requirements and recommendations for monitoring Tier-1 DNS infrastructure. But it should not make policy in this area as it encroaches on National Matters. ISTR the WG already has an open action item on this topic. Changing the DNSMON service -- or extending its scope -- is something for the NCC Services working group.
Shall we switch ml then to ncc-services-wg? (Just wait for my subscription to be approved).
Wearing my Board hat, I am extremely uncomfortable with the NCC straying from its core function (running an IP registry) by offering non-core services that could and should be provided by others. I hope DNSMON doesn't turn into a repeat of the current layer-9 issues with DNS hosting at the NCC.
If RIPE NCC provides DNSMON already for TLD and root operators, then it should provide same service for ENUM operators. I don't see difference in those two groups (which are heavily overlaped anyway). Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
On May 9, 2007, at 13:25, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Shall we switch ml then to ncc-services-wg? (Just wait for my subscription to be approved).
I think you will need to pursue this in both WGs. You'll need to use the policy development process in the NCC services WG to get a change in a service. But if DNSMON is to be extended to the Tier-1 infrastructure, the NCC would probably need to get something from the ENUM WG about what it is they're expected to monitor. Which could be as simple as "do whatever it is you do for ccTLDs".
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ondřej Surý" <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [enum-wg] DNSMON for enum zones
ccTLD: A Top Level Domain as defined by IANA.
Not exactly, as RECORDED by IANA. Kind regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve
participants (4)
-
Andy Davidson -
Elisabeth Porteneuve -
Jim Reid -
Ondřej Surý