New draft charter for the RIPE DNS WG

At 9:45 AM +0200 2002/07/12, Peter Koch wrote:

>  what do you mean by "RIPE requirement" in this context? I do not see
>  any means by which the NCC, the WG or RIPE could or should try to "enforce"
>  anything in that field.

	Well, at least for those zones that are delegated from the RIPE 
NCC, warnings could be sent to the delegees, and if those warnings 
are not acted on and the problem solved (within a specified period of 
time), then the delegation could be removed -- no information is 
better than bad information.

>  Anyway, the NCC already contributes to this BCP by providing DNS secondary
>  service for TLDs (even more recently).

	For the TLDs, notices could be sent to the owners of the zone, as 
well as the owners of the problem servers, and requests could be made 
to the root server operators to de-list the problematical servers, or 
to otherwise request that they enforce the policies.

	If there aren't any complaint procedures to request this kind of 
action, and/or policies that the TLD zone administrators and TLD 
server operators are required to follow, then I would suggest that we 
could help create them and then work to get them implemented.

>                                         The aspect of topological diversity
>  is approached by the ``shared secondary servers(?)'' project, which I think
>  is led by DE-NIC under the umbrella of CENTR. So, should we try to learn
>  more about these efforts?

	That would be something we should learn more about, and perhaps 
provide any additional support or assistance that we can.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.