[db-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] DNS Related Policy and Procedure Proposals

Hello,

On 22.01 02:47, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> [I didn't remove ncc-services-wg and db-wg lists since it's also a 
> policy and db-issue]
> 
> Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
> [...]
> >The reverse delegation policy has been revised, relaxing the terms
> >under which reverse delegation will be serviced and providing the
> >framework to implement the authorisation mechanism described
> >above. 
> >
> >The draft "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6
> >Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region" can be found at:
> >
> >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/reverse-draft-200401.html
> >
> >We would like to invite your comments on this. Please discuss these
> >proposals on the DNS Working Group mailing list.
> [...]
> 
> AFAIR there was no objection to this proposal as long as it comes to 
> relaxing the policy itself.
> I think we could implement the new draft ASAP.

I agree, that should run already ;-)

> The best part in my eyes is, that with the new policy and the new 
> authorisation system (mnt-domains ect.), every address space holder can 
> again request/update their rDNS delegations on their own (given the 
> correct db authorisation) - as long as they know what they do.
> (At least I think that's intentionally, since all the parts relating to 
> only LIRs can hand in requests have been removed :-) )

I only have one question - do I need to use mntner object for reverse
delegation? If so, couldn't that be just left on persons/roles?
So we (DNS team) wouldn't need two objects to delegate DNS for our address
space.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.