[dns-wg] Fwd: [enum-wg] Tier-2 provisioning: NS vs CNAME/DNAME

Jim,

Thanks for the comprehensive comments.  I'ld like to reply to one chunk 
at a time.

[dns-wg-ers, sorry for the cross-posting; I'ld use enum-wg if it were 
populated.]

On 15 Jul 2004, at 11:07, Jim Reid wrote:

> So what? Is disk space and RAM expensive?

No.  T1 zone-file size is indeed no big deal, mentioned for 
completeness only.

> The T1 registry is going to
> be storing so much data about its registrations -- tech & admin
> contact details, billing info, authentication/validation tokens, whois
> tags, registrar data, etc, etc -- that shaving off a couple of
> resource records would be lost in the noise.

Only if your (unstated) assumptions about the role of the T1 Registry 
match
the particular instance.  My concept of the T1 Registry is much lighter,
with delegation only at T1, payload (NAPTR of course, possibly others) 
at
T2, and validation with the registRARs.  This distributes 
customer-related
overhead to the front-office, where it can be related directly to each
registrar's business.

> For the T1, adding CNAMEs
> instead of conventional delegations might well be an unwanted
> complication: ie it requires changes and on-going support to the
> registry database and back-end scripts and tools. IIUC some registry
> systems only handle the RRs needed for conventional delegation: NS
> records and related glue.

IMHO such registry systems are not suited to the ENUM business, and a T1
which takes this approach is unlikely to be winning many tenders for
national infrastructure.  Of course, that depends on the clue-level
available to the local awarding agency.

I'm happy to say that, here in +353-land, our trial T1 is taking a more
helpful approach.

Best regards,

Niall O'Reilly
UCD Computing Services