ripe23-dns draft minutes

Hi folks,

here are (thanks Carol!) the draft minutes of the last DNS working group.
You are encouraged in reading and reporting about any wrong or missing part.
Please do that before friday march 5th. I will then finalize the minutes.

----------                                                     ----------
Antonio-Blasco Bonito                          E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it
GARR - Network Information Service      c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito
c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR                           Tel: +39 50 593246
Via S. Maria, 36                                       Fax: +39 50 904052
I-56126 PISA                                        Telex: 500371 CNUCE I
Italy                   Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html
----------                                                     ----------

=======================================================================
DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT

RIPE-23 dns-wg Meeting 

Monday, January 29, 1996
14.00 - 16:15

Chair: Antonio-Blasco Bonito
Scribe: Carol Orange

Attended by 93 people (see below for the list)

Agenda
------

1. Scribe

2. WG-agenda bashing

3. DNS Working Group chair needed

4. Status of 'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation

5. Status of the BIND software

6. Report of problems experienced

7. Report on European TLDs administrator's questionnaire

8. Delegation of International TLDs (Randy Bush)


-----------------------------------------------------------------


1. Scribe

   Carol Orange took notes.


2. Agenda 

   The agenda was agreed to without changes.


3. DNS Working Group Chair

   Rob Blokzijl:

      + announced that the former DNS-WG chair (Leonid A. Yegoshin) had
        to resign due to a change in both job and residence.

      + invited people to suggest candidates for the DNS working group 
	chair. 

   Hopefully a new chair will be appointed during the next RIPE meeting.


4. Status of 'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation

   David Kessens gave an update on the tool he created for 
   'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation. His report
   included the following information:

   To use the tool, one must:
	+ submit the appropriate RIPE database template
	  (inetnum or domain).
	+ send the template to <auto-inaddr at ripe.net>.
   The tool will:
	+ check the setup of the primary and secondary name servers.
	+ if no errors are detected,
		forward request to human operator for final approval.
	+ report back to user.
   The tool will *not*:
	+ check the relative location of servers.
	+ check whether the corresponding address space is allocated 
	  or assigned.
	+ check whether /24's which fall under a /16 to be delegated,
	  have been delegated.
   
   The latest version has several software improvements including:
	+ a standardised output transaction format.
	+ tools for RIPE support staff to check what the tool does not
	  check (see above).
	+ a number of bug fixes.

   Currently under development:
	+ a tool to automatically update RIPE NCC zone files after
          human approval.

   Plans to integrate the tool in RIPE database will mean:
	+ requests should be submitted to database with keyword.
	+ the  RIPE database authentication mechanism will be used 
	  to validate requests.

   The tool is available in:
	+ ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/inaddrcheck-960110.tar.gz

   Following David's report, the following discussion ensued. 

   Documentation about reverse delegation procedures was requested. 
   David replied that the necessary information will be provided 
   in ripe-104++.
   
   Whether the automated mechanisms for inverse delegations 
   will work with IPv6 came up. There was some discussion as to
   whether this is important given the slow progress of IPv6. However
   it was also mentioned that as test beds are becoming operational,
   these and other tools will be needed to support them. It is 
   expected that at most minor modifications to these mechanisms 
   will be required for use with IPv6.

   Randy Bush raised the issue of data integrity of DNS, and asked
   whether steps are being taken to prevent corruption of the 
   inaddr.arpa name space delegated in Europe. After some discussion
   on this topic, Randy said he has some tools available for
   inspecting the integrity of DNS name space. Those interested
   are welcome to contact him.
	
   This was followed by a discussion of how lame delegations come
   into being and why they need to be cleaned up. It was pointed out
   that the number of bad entries in the inaddr.arpa name space will
   increase as renumbering goes in to effect. It was also mentioned
   that currently the integrity of the European inaddr.arpa name 
   space data is quite good.

   
5. Status of the BIND software

   Blasco Bonito announced that a the final version of Bind 4.9.3 has been
   released. 
   
   Geert Jan de Groot recommended using the "no recursion" option 
   available in version 4.9.3 to prevent data pollution, and to control
   data sizes. This is useful if resources are limited.

** Action: Geert Jan offered to write up recommendations for managing
	   large databases.

   Finally, Randy Bush reported that a new version of TGV is available
   for VMS users.  Their new release contains, among much other stuff,
   a modern version of BIND with all the recent improvements
   (performance, security, etc).  Folks should be strongly encouraged
   to upgrade.  By the way, TGV was recently bought by cisco.


6. Report of problems experienced

   There have been some problems with the delegation of TLD names
   under non TLD domains. For example, someone recently delegated
   the name sgi.net.co.uk. The result is that sgi.com couldn't be
   resolved anymore when using some old resolvers. As a large number 
   of similar names were generated, the DNS name space became 
   severely polluted, and it took two days to clear it up.

   According to Geert Jan, the problem is caused in part by old 
   bind software, which in accordance with RFC1535 should no longer 
   be used, but in practice is. 

   Guy Davis says that in the UK, delegation of top level domain names
   under TLD's (e.g. net.uk) will no longer be permitted. 
   
   It was reported that this is already the case in other countries
   (i.e. Germany, Italy, ...) and that DNS second level administrators
   are also discouraged from allowing top level domain names to be used. 

   There was some discussion as to whether the problem should be
   solved by getting administrators to replace old resolver software
   or by getting them to abstain from delegating TLD names. In the
   end, there was consensus that the problem should be tackled as 
   a combined effort.

   It was mentioned again that the security issues are discussed in
   RFC-1535 and that DNS administrators should be reminded to review
   that document carefully.

7. Report on European TLDs administrator's questionnaire

   Guy Davis reported on a questionnaire he sent out to European TLD
   administrators. The questionnaire was designed to determine the
   policies used in DNS delegations by the TLD administrators. A
   summary of the report he presented follows. Anyone interested in
   the full set of information gathered can send a request to
   <guyd at pipex.net>.


   DNS TLD - Questionnaire
   
   - 22 response for 24 top level domains
   - Full set of answers available on request
   
   email: guyd at pipex.net
   
   EDITED HIGHLIGHTS
   
   1. Who defines your policies?
      Org Running TLD - 15 1/2
      The Government - 1 1/2
      ISPs by consensus - 4
   
   2. How do you establish your policies?
      By Working Group - 2
      Told by Govt. - 1 1/2
      Decided by Org Running TLD - 7 1/2
      ISPs by Concencus - 10
   
   3. What Legal Status do your decisions/policies have?
      None - 19 1/2
      As defined by Govt. - 1 1/2
   
   4a Public Subdomains?
      Yes - 7
      No - 15
     
    b Geographic Subdomains?
      Yes - 6
      No - 16
   
    c 2nd level categories (private & public) in parallel?
      Yes - 6
      No - 16
   
    d If you have public subdomains must everybodies request be accepted?
      Yes - 7
      N/A - 15
   
    e How would you split your TLD
      See full listing - 6
      N/A - 16
   
   5a Sub. TLD?
      Yes - 20
      No -2
   
    b Sub. public TLD?
      Yes - 7
      No - 15
   
   6a Who can obtain domains?
      Anyone - 11
      Just Orgs - 11
   
   8  Must the requester be local?
      Yes - 16
      No - 6
   
   9a More than one domain per Org. ?
      Yes - 12
      No - 10
   
   17a Do you charge ?
       Yes - 5
       No - 16
   
   19 Are you likely to change the system within 12 months?
      Yes - 14
      No - 5
      Don't know - 3
   
   22 Do you use automation?
      Yes - 11
      No - 11

   After Guy's presentation of the above data, a discussion started
   regarding the charging fees and schedules. Most TLD administrators
   presently don't charge, but are thinking about doing so to cover
   their costs. Among those who do charge, some have only a one time
   fee, and some have a yearly administration fee.

   There does not appear to be competition among the national TLD
   administrators. Moreover, running a TLD is primarily performed as
   a nonprofit service to the Internet community.
   
   Blasco suggested a need for better coordination among TLD
   administrators, so they can consult one another on technical and
   policy matters. It was pointed out that this does not mean they
   will all follow the same policy. 

   The question was raised as to whether some private forum for
   communication among TLD administrators should be created, so they
   can exchange information easily. 

   Whether or not 2nd level domain administrators might be included in
   the "private" communication was considered.

** Action: Daniel offered that the RIPE NCC will set up a mailing list
   for TLD administrators. 

   A need was also expressed that the policies of TLD administrators
   be made public.

** Action: The RIPE NCC will incorporate a page where TLD policies
   can be published at its WWW site.

   It was suggested the questionnaire be repeated in 6 months so that
   changes in policy can be monitored.
   
8. Delegation of International TLDs (Randy Bush)

   Randy Bush explained that there is a lot of talk in the US at the
   moment about whether and why new TLD's should be created.
   International TLD's are com, org & net. The main reason for
   expanding these is to create healthy competition in the market.
   Also, the US government (NSF here) wants to be out of the IP and
   DNS delegation business. 

   Randy also presented a set of guidelines that should be used in
   determining whether a new TLD can be created. 

   There was some discussion as to whether or not names should be 
   used for profit. Also, whether a white pages service (which is what
   DNS provides) is sufficient, or whether we should start looking
   into yellow page models for directory services.

   Back to the name space: it is perceived that the US wants to
   control the name space. Who gave them the right to edu, mil, and
   gov? Basically, it was stated that the US came up with those names,
   so they have a right to them. Still the process remains unclear. 

   Piet Beertema said the US should use the extension "us" just as other
   countries use country extensions. 

   Randy then summarised the proposal they are submitting to slowly 
   expand the number of TLD's. The number of TLD's would be increased 
   at a rate of about 3-5 per year. Basically, anyone suggesting a new
   domain should argue that it will serve some purpose that none of the
   currently existing TLD's do, and agree that it will be managed 
   responsibly following the guidelines agreed to in RFC1591 (as well
   as some new ones: nondiscrimination policies, appeals procedures,
   etc.).

   Piet B. pointed out that those changes only generate a false sense
   of order in the chaos. The new policies only apply to new TLD's, not
   to the old ones. No similar restrictions are applied to second
   level domain administrators. 

   Mike Norris pointed out that DNS administration is experienced as a
   public service in Europe. 

   Randy said that "com" on the other hand is turning into a high 
   profit monopoly, and the new suggestions are intended to curb its power. 

   A discussion surrounding the trademark wars surrounding domain names
   started up. Should the names be delegated on a "first come, first
   served" or should DNS administrators be required to control
   trademarks. 

   Back to the issue as to whether new TLD's should be created: 

   It was suggested that whereas the US TLD's fall under ".", they
   should be placed under "us" (e.g. com.us, mil.us, edu.us, etc).
   In other words, the problems surrounding "name for profit" monopolies
   are US based, and should be solved there. To clarify, this Randy asked
   the audience whether they should be removed from the root. There was
   general consesus about that.

That was about it for the DNS working group.


Attendees list
--------------
Antonio-Blasco Bonito   GARR-NIS
Rob Blokzijl            RIPE
Jiri Orsag              Eunet CZ
Jan HrJonka             -U-
Kurt Kayser             ECRC 
Marc Pichon             TRANSPAC
Bernard Tuy             CNRS / UREC
Arnold Nipper           NIG/Xlink
Elise Gerich            Merit
Havard Eidnes           NORDUnet/Uninett
Alfons Friedl           SERVICOM  
Dirk Pantring           DENIC
Sabine Dolderer         DENIC
Guy Davies              Unipalm PIPEX 
Lars-Johan Liman        Ebone NOC     
Geert Jan de Groot      RIPE NCC
Hans Petter Holen       SCHIBSTED NETT AS 
Ivan Sedinic            HPT - Croatian Post and Teleco
Stephan Biesbroeck      BELNET 
Christophe Huygens      Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Sean Doran              Sprint
Els Willems             RIPE NCC
Randy Bush
Michel Colin            Brussels University/Service Te
Steve Druck             TERENA
Ariel T. Sobelman       TERENA
Hatice Kuey             RIPE NCC
John Crain              RIPE NCC
Johannes 5 Joemann      Object Factory GmbH 
Oliver Mandischer       Object Factory GmbH
???                     RENATER
Paul Rolland            Oleane
Ireneusz Neska          NASK 
Simon Cavendish         EuroNet Internet 
Erwin Blekkenhorst      EuroNet Internet
Astrid Nijenhuis        EuroNet Internet
??? A. Vrivine          SKYWORLD
Ivan Communod           FTNSNL 
Alina Dodescu           Research Institute for Informa
Jan-Pieter Cornet       NL.XS4ALL 
Erik Bos                nl.xs4all
Cor Bosman              XS4ALL
Kimmo Kosonen           Telecom Finland
Jarmo Oksanen           Telecom Finland 
Willi Huber             SWITCH
Per Mattsson            Unisource Business Networks
Hakan Hansson           Unisource Business Networks
Harm Werkman            Unisource Business Networks NL
Geza Turchanyi          INFO-C 
Nick Shield             UKERNA/JANET
Kevin Hoadley           ULCC/JANET
Asquith Bonaparte       JANET NOSC
Bettina Kauth           DFN-NOC
Steven Bakker           DANTE
Daniele Bovio           America OnLine
Vaclav Novak            CESNET
Tomas Marsalek          GTS CzechCom 
Juergen Rauschenbach    DFN
Anne Lord               PIPEX International
Stef Van Dessel         INnet 
Magnus Danielson        KTH  
Nigel Titley            BTnet 
Giovanni Armanino       GARR-NIS 
Piet Beertema           CWI/NL TLD registry
Francis Dupont          INRIA 
Wilfried Woeber         VUCC / ACOnet
Tibor Weis              SANET - Slovakia
Barbara Dooley          CIX
Frank Slyne             Telecom Eireann
Oliver Smith            Demon Internet    
Cliff Stanford          Demon Internet Limited 
Dusan Keprta            EuroTel Bratislava Ltd.
Pavel Mikus             EuroTel Bratislava Ltd.
Oliver Doll             EUnet Deutschland GmbH
Janos Zsako             BankNet 
Pulak Rakshit           Cable Online 
Javed Mirza             Cable Online 
Holger Weinhardt        EUnet Deutschland GmbH
Balazs Martos           HUNGARNET
Janos Bajza             HUNGARNET
Ton Windgassen=         IBM Global Network Europe=
Carol Orange            RIPE NCC
Daniel Karrenberg       RIPE NCC
Bill Cessna             IBM Global Network
Matt Fakray             IBM Global Network
Helena Svensson         Tele2 / SWIPnet
Armando Domingues       FCCN/RCCN
Graca Carvalho          FCCN/RCCN
Miguel Sanz             RedIRIS 
Ruediger Volk           Deutsche Telekom 
Hans Frese              DESY
Elisabetta Ghermandi    I.N.F.N. - CNAF
Rushdul Mannan          Xara Networks Ltd

DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT
=======================================================================