ripe23-dns draft minutes

Quoting from Antonio_Blasco Bonito's message:
> 
> 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.

No answer received. Then this version is the final one.

Blasco

> 
> ----------                                                     ----------
> 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
> =======================================================================
> 


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