- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

A DNS Database Referral Mechanism
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 13 May '97

13 May '97

>Subject: A DNS Database Referral Mechanism >Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 10:44:31 +0200 >From: Carol Orange <Carol.Orange(a)ripe.net> Dear Carol! >Hi all, > >Below is a proposal put together by Wilfried Woeber and myself to >address the need for a referral mechanism for domain name queries in >the RIPE database. Thank you very much for putting that into proper wording and having it distributed to the groups. I feel it is appropriate to add that, while Carol and me did some finishing and sanity checking, we already received a considerable amount of very valuable comments and ideas from quite a few others. A big thank you to all of them! I thus urge the community to have a focussed discussion of the proposal, leading to a conclusion and implementation decision at the DNS & DB-WG meeting(s) is Dublin. Thanks, Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Inaddr Robot <auto-inaddr@ripe.net>
by Carol Orange 22 Apr '97

22 Apr '97

Dear All, First off, my apologies to all who get more than one copy of this message. I'm hoping not to miss anyone who may be effected. As many of you may know, we have long been planning to more fully automate our inaddr robot <auto-inaddr(a)ripe.net>. Well, we've gotten around to it and are happy to announce we will soon be doing almost all processing automatically, with just a touch of human intervention at the end to make certain our robot behaves as expected. The result will be a substantial reduction in rather tedius work for the NCC staff, and consistent short response times (one working day) for inaddr requests. The new robot, programmed by Mal Morris, will be installed on *** Tuesday, May 6, 1997 *** It is essential that users take the following changes into account: 1. The domain or inetnum database object must be in the RIPE database before the request is submitted to <auto-inaddr(a)ripe.net>. 2. As is required in ripe-140 (Section 3.4.2), the "status" field must be filled in properly for any inetnum associated with the request. The robot will complain and fail if either of these does not hold. We hope the new robot serves you well, Carol

1 0

FYI: APNIC and IAHC MoU
by Daniel Karrenberg 19 Apr '97

19 Apr '97

------- Forwarded Message Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:21:28 +0900 From: "David R. Conrad" <davidc(a)apnic.net> Sender: owner-apnic-talk(a)apnic.net To: apnic-talk(a)apnic.net Subject: APNIC's actions on the IAHC gTLD-MoU Hi, As you may have heard, APNIC has signed the gTLD MoU. The APNIC Executive Council was unanimous (well, almost: one EC member never responded to my request for comments, although that member's alternate did respond positively and it is quite likely that the EC member would be in favor since he was a member of the IAHC) in expressing the desire that APNIC sign the gTLD-MoU. Comments ranged from expressing strong support for the IAHC final recommendation to wanting Asia Pacific region to have input in future related developments should the IAHC recommendation be implemented. It should be noted that signing the gTLD-MoU in no way constrains the APNIC membership from either supporting or not supporting the IAHC final recommendation as they see fit, but rather insures APNIC has the option of input in future IAHC-related developments (should there be any) as a member of the Policy Advisory Board. Regards, - -drc _________________________________________________________________________ | To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request(a)apnic.net | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: Europen Commission Meeting with National TLD Registrars
by Miguel A. Sanz. RedIRIS/CSIC 11 Apr '97

11 Apr '97

On Apr 11, 14:40, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Subject: Europen Commission Meeting with National TLD Registrars ... > A total of eight TLD administrators was directly represented: BE DE FI > FR IE IT LU UK. I counted nine: also ES ;-) Miguel

2 1

Europen Commission Meeting with National TLD Registrars
by Daniel Karrenberg 11 Apr '97

11 Apr '97

Europen Commission Meeting with National TLD Registrars Brussels, April 9th 1997 Chair: Christopher Wilkinson, DG 13 As announced on the DNS WG list I attended this meeting on behalf of RIPE at the request of Rob who had prior commitments. The following is a subjective and selective summary of the meeting focussing on issues relevant for RIPE and the TLD administrators. It has not een checked with any of those represented and any misrepresentations are my responsibility. Purpose of the meeting as stated by the commision was to collect information about European DNS administration structures and to gather input from TLD registrars about recent developments as well as the commission's reactions to them. A numer of relevant documetns were circulated, most notably an issue paper used to raise this issue with the council of ministers (telecomms cttee) and a letter from the commission to the government of the United States. I try to make these available as soon as practical. The commission's stated interest is to follow DNS issues as they are becoming more political with the increasing importance of the Internet and to instigate the member countries to do the same. The commission is also taking steps on the intergovernmental level to raise the issue of European representation in the relevant processes. The commission states that they presently have no intention to directly interfere with the administration of the DNS in Europe nor to advise the governments of member states to do so. A total of eight TLD administrators was directly represented: BE DE FI FR IE IT LU UK. CH and NL were represented by informal proxy via RIPE. The European telecommunications operators association (ETNA ?) were also present. The commission participated with representatives from DG1, DG3, DG12, DG13 and DG15. (Eurocrats please forgive me the arabic numbers ;-). Currently the DNS is subject to deliberations of the commission, the EU council of ministerrs as well as many international treaty organisations such as ITU, WIPO and OECD. The TLD registrars were unanimous in the opinion that the DNS in Europe is functioning well. National TLDs work, they are accessible, fairly administered and registration is doen on a not-for-profit basis. Conflict resoloution also works on the national level. There was also agreement that the process to decide on the creation of additional gTLDs via the IAHC is flawed for several reasons including but not limited to the excessive speed with which it was conducted and the general preoccupation to solve unstated North American prolems. The process and its results would greatly benefit from more careful consultation with European stakeholders which would result in the necessary level of acceptance of the conclusions. There were some concerns that the structures produced by the flawed process would eventually become effective also for the administration of national TLDs. None of the represented organisation had the intention to sign the MoU resulting from the IAHC process neither were they considering to become a registrar for one of the new gTLDs. All TLD registrars present also stated explicitly that currently RIPE is considered an appropriate forum for a process of forming and formulating common positions of the TLD administrators as well as general coordination. Privately some of them expressed concern about the lack of concrete activity in this area. Christopher Wilkonson suggested that a small group be formed from those present and charged to develop a common positions in an open and transparent process. Due to lack of time no conclusion was reached about this. Further e-mail discussion on this topic was agreed on a list t.b.a.. If progress warrants it a meeting concurrent with the Dublin RIPE meeting is being considered. Wilkinson also asked for all those who have indeed made comments to IAHC to provide him with copies to be used in the commissions discussions with the US government. Wilkinson also expressed that the commission was interested to talk to the European ISPs on these issues and requested input on suitable organisations to approach. The conclusion was that while a number of national organisations exist representing ISPs, there currently is no such animal on a European level. I reported that RIPE had considered this issue and so far consciously decided not to move towards becoming a representative or lobbying body for the European ISP industry. Further short items of interest: Some of those present felt more stakeholders than just the classic ISPs should be encouraged to take an active part in TLD administration. Mentioned were consumers groups, web hosting organisations and specialised name registration companies. The latter were observed to generate an increasingly significant part of registration requests f.i. in the UK. Appropriate legal structures for national TLD administration seem to be a recurring problem and much energy is spent on finding cq. defining them. A DG13 representative felt that it was necessary and inevitable to convert the monopolistic registration structures in national TLDs into oligopolies with market forces having free play. Some of those present questioned the generalised and immediate necessity for this given the existance of accepted and fair mechanisms that currently work. Others questioned whether such structures would actually work given that there is little space for different registration services to distinguish themselves from others and consequently a danger of only a single one or a very small number surviving after a very short time. A DG15 representative noted that WIPO has a one week meeting scheduled at the end of May to collect opinions form governments and NGOs about their proposals to start registrations in TM.INT as well the use of their arbitration service to resolve DNS disputes. RIPE has received an invitation to that meeting but currently does not intend to go to an informal meeting lasting for a whole week. DE-NIC is in the final stages to reorganise themselves as a cooperative wich is much more open to participation than the current structure. NOMINET (UK TLD admin) have had good experiences when releasing restrictions on the number and kind of names that can be registrered as much as possible. While the number of registrations has increased to 4000+/month customers are much happier and tend to consider registering in gTLDs muc less frequently. The FI TLD administration is slated to move from EUnet FI to the Finnish Telecom Administration (a governmental body) in May/June. It was not clear to me by which process this was decided nor if there is consensus about this in FI. A DG13 representative reported that OECD (telecomms cttee ???) was currently considering a statement about DNS administration. Apparently they have a draft document which includes quite some detail about the current state of affairs. Unfortunately the document is not publicly available at this time and even somewhat shrouded in secrecy. Also the relevance of OECD in this context remained unclear to me. Does anyone know more? Conclusion For RIPE an important conclusion of this is that we are being looked at as a forum to form common opinions among the ISPs and TLD admins. Other European bodies are very much prepared to listen to the results. There is some concern that RIPE has not clearly stepped up this task. RIPE has to decide quickly whether it wants to take action in this area and which steps if any it will take. If we decide not to get involved we should also state so quickly in order to avoid blocking progress and being damaged by not fulfilling expectations. That's all folks. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Daniel

1 0

(no subject)
by Dimitrios Chrysaidis 10 Apr '97

10 Apr '97

subscribe

1 0

Commission DGXIII meeting on DNS
by k13＠nikhef.nl 01 Apr '97

01 Apr '97

Dear Colleagues, please find below an invitation we received from DGXIII - plus agenda. We intend to send Daniel Karrenberg to represent RIPE at that meeting (I am attending a conference in Berlin that day). Input (to the list) is most welcome. Greetings, Rob +--- Start of included message from: Christopher.WILKINSON(a)BXL.DG13.cec.be ----- | | Dear Rob Blockzijl, | Thank you for your message; I tried to telephone you yesterday. I regr= | et that | you will be in Berlin on 9 April, but I do feel however that it would b= | e very | useful if RIPE could nevertheless be represented at the meeting with th= | e | Registrars for the National TLDs, and I wonder whether it would be poss= | ible for | you to designate one or two of your colleagues to participate instead. | I attach the proposed agenda for your information. | Regards, Christopher Wilkinson | Attachment: Proposed Agenda | =20 | Internet Domain Name System | Commission meeting with the National TLD Registrars | DG XIII, Beaulieu , 9 April 1997, 14.30 - 17.00 | Proposed Agenda=20 | 1 Background to the Commission interest in the DNS | _ Introduction | _ comments made to the IAHC and the United States | 2. Structure and organisation of the National TLDs in Europe | _ coordination and consultation mechanisms | _ sharing access to TLD Registries between National and other Registrar= | s | _ management and control of critical databases. | 3. European participation in the organisation and management of th= | e | Internet DNS | _ National Registrars_ comments and input to the IAHC | _ relationship between the DNS in Europe and telecommunications numberi= | ng | _ participation in WIPO review of trademark aspects. | 4. The proposed generic TLDs | _ the need for and definition of proposed gTLDs | _ language considerations | _ alternative requirements and proposals. | 5. Allocation of new gTLD Registrars | _ eligibility criteria (c.f. IAHC technical and financial parameters) | _ sharing of Registries and competition considerations | _ sharing of existing TLDs | _ management and control of critical databases | _ Selection procedures (c.f. proposed lottery) | _ alternative proposals. | 6. European participation in future Internet organisation and mana= | gement of | the DNS | _ Relationships with existing bodies: ISOC, IANA, NSI, etc. | _ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) | _ Proposed new bodies (CORE, POC, PAB) | _ Competence of the future structure for existing TLDs | _ Representation of National Registrars. | 7. Orientations for future coordination and consultation in Europe= | | regarding the Domain Name System. | ________________ | = | +--- End of included message from: Christopher.WILKINSON(a)BXL.DG13.cec.be -----

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Marcel Schneider 24 Jan '97

24 Jan '97

On Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997, Christophe Wolfhugel writes: > Marcel Schneider: >> IMHO: Your answer is insufficient if not entirely mistaken. The inhabitants >> of central and southern Europe have a right to the same kind of connectivity >> as the northern region is now trying to get hold of or already has done >> so. Make no sense to improve an already good situation. > What about having the Europeans to work towards moving the center of > Europe from the US East coast to some European point ? > As long as European major connectivity providers are ignoring each other > and having their best interconnection points being MAE-East or the NY Nap > all this seems useless to me... > (that was an end user's point of view -- intra Europe networking is not > usable today for people who work, at least those not in scandinavian areas). > So for us, London, Stockholm, NY, Washington, Geneva, Milano, etc... that > root server will mainly be unrechable :(. > The location of that server is not a technical issue, it's a political one. Agreements, policies. Also my (personal) opinion. But as long as Peter Lothberg <roll(a)Stupi.SE> et al are attempting to tell us 'route your inter-European IP packets over the US' nothing will improve. The owners of 150+ MB links to the US can easily sell this opinion, but it is absurd. > -- > Christophe Wolfhugel -+- SIS, Institut Pasteur, Paris > Boulot : wolf(a)pasteur.fr, $HOME : wolf(a)schnok.fr.net Marcel

2 1

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
by Ian Mason 24 Jan '97

24 Jan '97

At 13:08 20/01/97 +0000, Keith N Mitchell wrote: [snip] > I don't think there are any sacred cows for any of these here - > if we adjust the LINX policy to meet requirements of the root NS > rather than the other way around, I don't think we break either > of 1 or 2. I don't think it breaks 3. either, but this requirement > will go away when we have a route server in any case. If we opt for the root NS to have its own AS then there is no barrier to people offering identical routing policy for the LINX and the NS. If it shares the LINX AS then it will be impossible to have different policy for LINX and the NS. So, if there is a possibility that there will ever be a requirement to have different routing policy for the NS and the LINX it would seem wise to give the NS its own AS. It may be moot in as much as it's probably desireable to achieve 'root server connectivity quality' for the LINX AS, but the seperate AS for the root server would preserve some flexibility.

4 4

proposed agenda - DNS WG session at RIPE26
by Ruediger Volk 23 Jan '97

23 Jan '97

Dear colleagues, please find below a proposed agenda for a DNS WG session at the upcoming RIPE26. 1. Opening & administrativa 2. Agenda bashing 3. Report from San Jose IETF (IRE(?) BOF) 4. Report from IAHC proposal debate (mailing list) 5. Collect & prepare RIPE feedback to IAHC 6. proposed root server from VBCnet 7. technical DNS issues (a) Status new DNS standards work (dnssec, dnsind) (b) new software status (c) any recent technical problems to discuss? 8. reports/news from various top level domains 9. AOB For the reporting items (3, 4, 7*, 8) I would like to ask for volunteers who participated or observed the events or processes to identify to me the kind offer to present a short summary report or position. I have included items 7. and 8. but consider those optional; if neither reports are offered nor priority requests for discussing specific issues are received I think these items should be dropped - as time will be short for the remaining items anyway. Ruediger

2 1