This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[dns-wg] Request for trusted party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Request for trusted party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Request for trusted party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Jul 25 17:42:12 CEST 2016
> On 25 Jul 2016, at 15:59, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zwart at ripe.net> wrote: > > The RIPE NCC requests proposals for service from a DNS service provider > in order to improve the resiliency of the RIPE NCC's zones, especially > ripe.net. > > The submission deadline is Sunday, 14 August 2016. > > For more details please see: > > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/request-for-trusted-party-to-provide-secondary-dns-services Thanks for this Romeo. The above URL doesn’t say very much. Could you please provide some more details? Are you expecting fully-baked and costed proposals by the mid-August deadline or just expressions of interest by then? What sort of service levels and commitments are the NCC looking for from potential suppliers? eg: a 24x7 NOC, SLAs, minimum/maximum query rates, anycast/unicast provision, server location(s), diversity of DNS software, statistics/logging, incident handling & escalation, mandatory/optional protocol requirements, support for DNS features like RRL, etc, etc. Which things on this sort of shopping list are essential/desirable/optional? It seems unrealistic/unreasonable to ask for responses when there’s so little information on what bidders are expected to be quoting on. Or what the "small number of additional zones” might be. [Do they include “.” or subdomains of .arpa? :-)] Or what is meant by a small number. I also think it’s a bit optimistic to give bidders just three weeks to prepare their responses. More so during peak holiday season. Why the rush?
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Request for trusted party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Request for trusted party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]