[dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem

Dear Jim,

as one of those that was looking for a path to operationaly
circumvent this new IANA policy, may I thank the dns-wg that
have clearly stated with others that "there is no technical
reason in the DNS protocols preventing this practice (aka:
"use different [NS] names for the same address").

The questions you raise now are very valid :

> [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented
> multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved?
> 
> [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed?
> 
> [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem
> recurring?
> 
> [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that
> changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process
> are properly communicated to its stakeholders?
> 
> [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not?

BTW, above the specific multinamming issue, they are now among the
core ones that need to be taken seriously by the DNS community in
my view.

I have looked in the dns-wg charter :

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/index.html

It is not perfectly clear for me what kind of contribution you are
waiting for to help moving forward, and the kind of actions you see
as conceivable to be undertaken by the dns-wg ?

Thanks,

Olivier




le mardi 24 mai à 11 H 47 , Jim Reid a ecrit :
> You'll all have seen the response from Doug Barton confirming that the
> technical problem has been fixed. It is now permitted to have multiple
> names for the same IP address in a TLD delegation from the root. That
> particular aspect of the discussion should be considered closed IMO
> because the problem has been resolved. However, there are some other
> things that I'd like the WG to consider and discuss. These concern the
> process and transparency issues that have been highlighted by this
> problem.
> 
> I wonder if the WG would like to pursue these?
> 
> In particular, I'd like the WG to consider if we should pursue answers
> to the following questions:
> 
> [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented
> multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved?
> 
> [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed?
> 
> [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem
> recurring?
> 
> [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that
> changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process
> are properly communicated to its stakeholders?
> 
> [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not?
> 
> If anyone here has more questions about this incident, please post
> them. If there's consensus in the WG that this matter needs further
> action, then we need to decide what the next steps, if any, should be.
> I'd welcome a discussion and comments.
> 
> It's now over to you, the list members....

-- 
Olivier