[address-policy-wg] 2008-05 New Draft Documents Published (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)

Peter,
   thanks for the input much appreciated.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Peter Koch <pk at denic.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:05:19PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
>
>> Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM
>
>>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html
>
> {Full disclosure: DENIC would benefit from the implementation of this proposal.}
>
> I support the proposal, but I'm still unhappy with parts of the wording:
> {only looking at the v4 text, comments apply to the v6 version accordingly}
>
>>> 6.9 Anycasting TLD and Tier 0/1 ENUM Nameservers
>>>
>>> Critical DNS infrastructure is defined as infrastructure providing Authoritative
>>> TLD or ENUM Tier 0/1 DNS lookup services.
>
> The term "Critical DNS infrastructure" is defined here just to be referred to
> in one single place three paragraphs down.  I'd prefer if the term would be
> avoided and "Authoritative TLD or ENUM Tier 0/1 DNS lookup services" be
> inserted at the appropriate place.
>

I'm happy to change this if the working group feels it's needed.

>>> The organisations applicable under this policy are TLD operators as defined by
>>> IANA and ENUM operators as defined by the ITU. The organisation may receive up
>>> to four /24 prefixes per TLD/ENUM. These prefixes must be used for the sole
>
> "TLD operators as defined by IANA" may be a well intended phrase, but many
> affected registries would reject being "defined" by IANA.  This layer 9 stuff
> aside, I'm still uncertain whether the assignment goes to the registry itself
> or to some operator who provides name service for TLDs (or ENUM, for that
> matter).  The former makes more sense to me. "TLD manager/administrator as
> described in RFC 1591" might be more acceptable.

Well the input from the working group I had received earlier was that
the allocation should not necessarily go to either the registry or the
DNS operator but to the organisation who has been delegated authority
over the namespace from either IANA or ITU,

In most cases this is the same organisation but it could be that the
IANA/ITU gives responsibility for a Tier1 ENUM to an organisation[1]
and they subcontract the registry to one company[2] and public facing
DNS to another [3], in this situation my intention was for the
allocation to go to [1] I believe the wording as is reflects this, I'm
happy to update it but would prefer the allocation still goes to [1]

How about

"The organisations applicable under this policy are TLD operators as
recorded in the IANA's Root Zone Database and ENUM operators as
approved and recorded by the ITU".


> Similar considerations apply to "ENUM operators as defined by the ITU".
> As a side note, ENUM Tier 0 assignments would probably have interactions
> with the policy proposal on "Assignments to the NCC".
>
>>> purpose of anycasting authoritative DNS servers for the stated TLD/ENUM, as
>>> described in RFC 3258.
>
> This is a verbatim quote from the current policy documents, but a reference to
> BCP126/RFC4786 might be more appropriate these days.


This sounds sensible

>
>>> Assignments for Critical DNS infrastructure are subject to the policies
>>> described in the RIPE document entitled "Contractual Requirements for Provider
>>> Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region".
>>>
>>> Anycasting assignments are registered with a status of 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in
>>> the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for
>>> Critical DNS infrastructure any longer.
>
> OK, 2nd occurence, but s/Critical DNS infrastructure/the purpose justifying the
> assignment/.
>

Thanks for the comments,

Some credit should also go to Leo Vegoda for some input, thanks Leo.

Brett