[dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem

On Monday, 30 May 2005, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC writes:

Dear all

> 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").

To support Olivier's point: we also were relieved to hear from
Doug Barton that no such policy was introduced. My question
to Jim and maybe Jaap is: how did you became aware that ICANN/
IANA would or already has introduced such measures ? Unfortunately
we at SWITCH do not hear the grass growing and were catched
by surprise. It is important that we all fully understand the
issue to learn from it.


Marcel


> 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