- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: Draft liaison statement on Public ENUM under e164.arpa for the September 2026 ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting
by Hisham Ibrahim 17 Aug '26

17 Aug '26

Dear colleagues, I am sharing this message the DNS, Database, RIPE NCC Services Working Group mailing lists to ensure all relevant working groups are informed. If you wish to share thoughts in response, please reply to the thread on the RIPE NCC coop-WG mailing list. Regards Hisham ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hisham Ibrahim <HMI(a)ripe.net> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 at 17:40 Subject: Draft liaison statement on Public ENUM under e164.arpa for the September 2026 ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting To: <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Following the earlier discussions on Public ENUM under e164.arpa, I have prepared the following draft liaison statement for the September 2026 ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting. In my draft I tried to: - clarify the RIPE NCC’s position following SG2-C-0196*, - support the confirmation of the revised interim procedures**, - outline how the responses to TSB Circular 123*** could inform the treatment of individual delegations, - and provide an updated overview of the operational status of the current delegations. I would appreciate feedback on my draft and I would appreciate it if you could share any comments or concerns, particularly on the technical, procedural or governance aspects, by 25 August, so that the RIPE NCC can incorporate the feedback before finalizing the submission. Many thanks in advance for your review. Regards, Hisham * https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/ENUM_liaison_statement_ITU_T_SG2.pdf ** https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/inr/enum/Pages/procedures.aspx *** https://www.itu.int/md/T25-TSB-CIR-0123/en To: ITU-T Study Group 2, September 2026 Meeting Title: RIPE NCC liaison statement on ENUM (e164.arpa) Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC thanks ITU-T Study Group 2, the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, the Internet Architecture Board, Member States and ENUM delegation operators for their continued engagement concerning Public ENUM under e164.arpa. The RIPE NCC operates the e164.arpa zone as the IAB’s designated operator under the established coordination arrangements involving the IAB, ITU-T and the RIPE NCC. 1. RIPE NCC position At the February 2026 meeting of Study Group 2, the RIPE NCC submitted contribution SG2-C-0196. The contribution arose from an operational question concerning support for ENUM domain objects through the Registration Data Access Protocol, but also raised broader questions concerning the future status of ENUM and e164.arpa. Following subsequent engagement with the IAB, ENUM delegation operators and members of the RIPE community, the RIPE NCC recognizes that those broader questions did not accurately reflect the established distribution of responsibilities. This statement therefore clarifies and supersedes the relevant parts of SG2-C-0196. For the avoidance of doubt, the RIPE NCC supports the continued operation of Public ENUM under e164.arpa and is not proposing its closure. SG2-C-0196 no longer represents a request for Study Group 2 to determine the technical or architectural future of ENUM or e164.arpa. Any future consideration of a system-wide change would require coordination involving the IAB, the relevant IETF and ITU-T processes, the RIPE NCC and affected stakeholders. 2. Operational status and revised procedures The RIPE NCC has reviewed the 46 current delegations recorded in the RIPE Database. Of these, 23 showed no DNS issue at the top delegation level, 17 appeared non-operational and six showed partial DNS issues. These findings identify a registry-maintenance and data-accuracy issue. They do not provide a sufficient basis for a system-wide conclusion concerning Public ENUM or e164.arpa. The RIPE NCC therefore welcomes the revised Interim procedures for Geographic Country Codes (ENUM administration ad interim) contained in TD423 Rev.1/PLEN. The revised procedures provide an appropriate mechanism for addressing individual non-operational or expired temporary delegations while preserving functioning delegations and the ability of Member States to confirm, update, withdraw or subsequently restore their delegations. Responses to TSB Circular 123 may provide useful information concerning the status and intentions of individual national delegations. The RIPE NCC considers that such information should inform individual cases under the revised procedures, rather than a system-wide conclusion concerning Public ENUM or e164.arpa. 3. Request to Study Group 2 The RIPE NCC respectfully invites Study Group 2 to: - confirm that the revised procedures contained in TD423 Rev.1/PLEN will come into force at the September 2026 meeting and will provide the applicable mechanism for addressing individual non-operational or expired temporary delegations; and - continue coordination with the IAB, the RIPE NCC, the relevant IETF processes and affected stakeholders on any broader questions concerning the technical or long-term status of ENUM and e164.arpa. Once the revised procedures come into force, the RIPE NCC intends to apply them systematically and transparently, including by refreshing its technical assessment, engaging with relevant delegation operators where possible and submitting substantiated cases to TSB. The question of Registration Data Access Protocol support is separate from the continued operation of Public ENUM and will be considered through the appropriate technical and community processes. The RIPE NCC remains committed to working constructively with Study Group 2, TSB, the IAB, Member States, delegation operators and the RIPE community to maintain e164.arpa in a stable, accurate and technically sound manner.

1 0

Stale IPv6 glue in the root zone for four ccTLDs
by Patrik Wallstrom 15 Aug '26

15 Aug '26

Hi, In a recent run of my gonemaster analysis of all the TLDs, I just discovered that four ccTLDs has stale glue in the root for the RIPE nameservers, https://gonemaster.evilbit.de/analysis/tags/OUT_OF_BAILIWICK_ADDR_MISMATCH?… It's for the ccTLDs ne, ps, sd, and tj, which as the nameservers [ne|ps|sd|tj].cctld.authdns.ripe.net that all have old glue. I have not seen this before, but also I have just updated the testcase specification for this specifically, as the root does not always give all the glue from the root. Just a heads up to whoever manages this glue. / Patrik

1 0

DNS Resolver Recommender
by Richter, Robert 14 Aug '26

14 Aug '26

Hello everybody! We built the tool “DNS Resolver Recommender”: * https://dns.diic-hpi.org It is a small DoH measurement tool that should catch DNS behavior from the user’s browser. It measures a list of 200+ public DoH resolvers for both cached and uncached domains and recommends the best one for the user. Upon opt-in, we also collect the (anonymized) measurement data for research (see the Privacy Disclosure<https://dns.diic-hpi.org/privacy.html>). We made every effort to collect only data that maintains privacy. In the future, we also want to release snapshots of our data to the community. Therefore, I am writing to this mailing list: We would greatly appreciate it if you tried the tool and, if you feel comfortable, also activate the opt-in to support our research work. Thank you in advance! Best regards, Robert

4 3

Resolved: NRTM issue affecting reverse DNS provisioning
by Florian Obser 13 Aug '26

13 Aug '26

Dear colleagues, Between 00:06 on 2 August and 12:30 (UTC) on 4 August, we experienced an issue affecting our Near Real Time Mirroring (NRTM) service. Since our reverse DNS provisioning system also uses NRTM, updates to the global DNS were delayed over this period. All pending updates were processed once we applied a fix to the NRTM issue. We plan to publish a brief post-mortem report with more details soon. You can always check the status of our services at status.ripe.net. Kind regards, Florian Obser Principal Engineer, DNS RIPE NCC

1 1

Nominet DNS Fund
by Lizzie Griffiths 13 Aug '26

13 Aug '26

Hello, We are excited to share that the Nominet DNS Fund is now open for its second application window, with £650,000 available to support open source projects that underpin the internet's core infrastructure. Following a strong first round, this latest funding window brings increased investment and greater flexibility. We are looking to support both new and existing projects, including one-off initiatives and longer-term work that improves the sustainability of essential DNS technologies. If you are working on open source DNS software, tooling, or infrastructure - this is an opportunity to secure funding for work that is critical but often under-resourced. Successful projects from the first round span DNS libraries, testbeds and operational tools used by registries around the world, highlighting the real-world impact of this community. Applications are open now and will close on 17th August at 9am BST. Find out more and apply on the Nominet website: https://nominet.uk/our-impact/nominet-dns-fund/

2 1

Help us identify community-driven sessions for the November 11 following OARC 47
by Jerry Lundström 23 Jul '26

23 Jul '26

Hi, We are planning to offer a full day of community-driven sessions on Wednesday, 11 November, immediately following the main OARC 47 workshop. We'd like to hear from the broader DNS and Internet operations community. What topics or activities would you like to see happen, and what could be realistically organized—or that you would be interested in helping organize? Recent workshop feedback included interest in tutorials and short training sessions, working group and interest group side meetings, BOFs, hackathons, tool demos, and operator round-tables. To make this useful, we need more than topic suggestions: we are especially looking for people who are willing to host a session, help organize one, or point us toward someone who has already expressed interest in leading a specific project, topic, or discussion. This additional day will not require a separate registration fee for OARC 47 attendees. We have conference rooms available from 08:30–16:30 on the 11 November. Each room can accommodate up to 15 participants and includes basic boardroom AV. The day is currently planned around the following schedule: - 08:30–10:00 session block - 10:00–10:30 morning coffee break - 10:30–12:00 session block - 12:00–13:00 lunch - 13:00–14:30 session block - 14:30–15:00 afternoon coffee break - 15:00–16:30 session block Sessions may use one or more blocks depending on the format, organizer availability, and room scheduling. Possible formats include: - hands-on tutorials - OARC tools training or demos - software demos - BOFs - hackathons - focused working group or interest group meetings (for instance standards or BCP discussions) - operator round-tables - "help me brainstorm this problem" sessions If you are willing to host something, help organize something, or connect us with someone who may be a good lead for a specific session, please complete the following form by *24 August 2026 23:59 UTC*. Form Link <https://zfrmz.com/arOnEOkvgGa9UoqvwOGn> The form also includes a small section for attendee interest, but our immediate priority is identifying sessions with a potential host, organizer, or named point of contact. Submitting a proposal does not guarantee a confirmed room or time slot. OARC staff will review responses and follow up to confirm session details, timing, room fit, and any support needed. We hope this additional day can create space for practical work, smaller-group discussions, and hands-on knowledge sharing that can be difficult to fit into the regular workshop agenda. Best, DNS-OARC

1 0

OARC 47 Call for Contribution
by Ulrich Wisser 18 Jul '26

18 Jul '26

This workshop will be a hybrid event. Date - 09-10 November 2026 Location - Vancouver, British Columbia Times - approximately 10:00-17:00 PDT (Local time PDT is UTC -7; note that British Columbia has opted to remain on PDT all year round) Deadline for Submissions - 2026-08-24 23:59 UTC https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/58/abstracts/ All DNS-related subjects and discussion topics are welcome although we're particularly keen to hear more about operational and security related experiences, best practices and practical advice; both for newcomers to the DNS arena and those who have been around for longer who want to learn more about new features and opportunities to improve resilience, security and privacy. (These topics we think will complement the usual high-quality data-based research submissions we always hope to receive!) If you have something interesting to share with the community that lies outside of the focus above, please don't be put off - if it's good, we'll be happy to include it. You can also contact us directly at submissions(a)dns-oarc.net<mailto:submissions@dns-oarc.net> if you would like to ask about the suitability of a potential presentation submission topic. If you'd like to offer a talk, but are not quite sure what to pick, here's a non-exhaustive list of ideas: 1. Operations & Deployment · Configuration management, deployment processes, and interoperability experiences. · Tools, tips, and making effective use of DNS software features. 2. Performance, Resilience & Scaling · Provisioning, load-balancing, and planning for resilience. · DNS performance management, efficiency improvements, and metrics. · Monitoring infrastructure: log pipelines, analytics, and anomaly detection. 3. Security, Privacy & Policy · DoS attacks, DNS abuse, DNSSEC signing and validation. · Privacy considerations, for example: encrypted transport, qname minimization, data anonymization. · Relevant global and regional policies, legislation, and compliance. 4. Research & Innovation · Data-driven testing, measurement, and analysis. · New protocols, protocol extensions, and next-generation namespace management. 5. Lessons & Learnings · Outage experiences, recovery stories, and cautionary tales · For further details please see https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc47 ..., for the DNS-OARC Programme Committee Ulrich

1 0

[RIPE 93] DNS WG Call for Presentations
by Yevheniya Nosyk 10 Jul '26

10 Jul '26

Dear colleagues, It might still seem far away, but RIPE 93 in Sofia is approaching. The RIPE 93 meeting will be held from 26 to 30 October 2026. Our working group session is currently scheduled for 29 October at 11:00 local time, but please note that this may still change. This email is our official call for topics for the DNS Working Group session. Since RIPE 91, all plenary and working group proposals have been submitted through the same system, Pretalx. Please submit your proposals by 15 September 2026 using the following link: https://pretalx.ripe.net/ripe-93/cfp. Alternatively, you may still send your proposals directly to us at <dns-wg-chairs AT ripe.net>. If you are using Pretalx, please pay special attention to the following fields: • Talk type: "Lightning talk" or "Talk" • Track: "DNS WG" • Duration: Time in minutes for the presentation and Q&A. This may differ from the default duration for the selected talk type. You can find more information about the Pretalx system here: https://ripe93.ripe.net/present/how-to-submit-a-proposal/ As usual, participation in the working group session is possible both in person and remotely. We plan to send out the first round of notifications at the end of September 2026. Cheers, RIPE DNS Working Group co-chairs (Marc, Ulrich, and me)

1 0

DNS Related drafts adopted in the IETF.
by Warren Kumari 03 Jun '26

03 Jun '26

Hi there all, At the recent RIPE 92 meeting the IAB presented on "Bridging IETF and RIPE - From Standards to Operations and back". Part of the feedback was that we should share more targeted information, for example that a list of newly adopted drafts and published RFCs. A primary purpose of this is incase you see a newly adopted draft where you feel that you might be able and willing to provide feedback and operational insight. This is a trial run of this process - it's newly published RFCs and adopted drafts in DNS groups. Please let me know if it's actually interesting / of use to you, and I'll see about making it better. I realize that this is just a list of draft names and titles - I had considered also adding the draft abstracts, but that would have made this super long and hard to read… Because this is the first time I'm starting from Jan 1st - if this is useful, future ones would be much shorter… Feedback (including "No, this is just clutter!!!") welcome, W Operations and Management AreaDomain Name System Operations (dnsop) <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/about/> adopted drafts since 2026-01-01: - draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-mgmt-via-ddns: Automating DNS Delegation Management via DDNS <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-mgmt-via-ddns/> - draft-ietf-dnsop-delext: DNS Protocol Modifications for Delegation Extensions <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-delext/> - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-keyrestore: DNSSEC Key Restore <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-keyrestore/> - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc9364bis: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc9364bis/>

5 5

next steps for DNS, Transitive Trust and How Many is Many
by Michael Richardson 22 May '26

22 May '26

I just watched Ondřej Surý's excellent talk about "How many DNS queries does it take to resolve a single domain name?" (I declined to get up to watch live, now I regret missing the interactive part...) Jim Reid asked about turning this into a RIPE document. And Joe Abley noted how the empty cache is not really the static state. My completely unsurprising comment is that the right "goldilocks" number is going to depend, and I think that what we probably need is a way to do reproduceable tests. The observation that bind 9.11 thru .21 have radically different numbers... And I imagine unbound, and windows server's resolver, and dnsmasq, and whatever cloudflare, google, and the other public resolvers use using... each will have different results. Is there also some dependancy on distance to authoratitive resolvers? Certainly, the latency test is done for . and then the queries tend to stick to the best one. And LocalRoot changes this. I've never been quite clear what the behaviour is for other levels. "Easy" for most of the people reading this list to pop-off and start a container or VM or ./named-I-just-compiled and do some measurements. Not sure how I'd test an empty public resolver instance! Whether people like public resolvers or hate them, some portion of people use them, and most zone owners probably want to make sure they aren't tripping up some pathology in one place by optimizing another. So one thing that I think we need is something that explains how to do the tests. Command lines in appendices or better, on a forkable-on-coding-site wiki. Concepts in the document. The next thing I think that we need is then a way (a proceedure, not a tool), given the above, to simulate some kind of failure. Ondřej's reply about how, if I'm running potatocoding.org, and .org servers are all down, then I'm toast, even if I've decided to put an NS in .net/.com and .it. That's relevant, but it's not the whole story. Such broad, high-level outages are now rare, I think. What isn't rare are 2016-style Murai attacks on parts of the infrastructure. I wonder how long teams.office.com takes to resolve if ns3-39.azure-dns.org and ns3-39.azure-dns.info are both down/under-multi-TB/s attack, along with ns3-05.azure.dns.org (where office.com is). The resolver that did more queries, and cached more answers might be ahead... unless the more answers meant that it was more likely to have LRU'ed out some other useful answers. How do I simulate/test that? How do I simulate my resolver being in some other continent? Can I still resolve canada.ca when all our fiber to the US is turned off as part of another trade dispute? (Maybe more relevant to smaller *island* nations!!!) It seems to me that knowing how things degrade (not if, but how) could become an important part of due-diligence. I think someone will need to fund this, even if it's "only" in the form research grants to graduate students. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(a)sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide ** My working hours and your working hours may be different. ** ** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **

1 0