[dns-wg] Request for trusted party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

Hi Jim,
Thanks for the quick response.

On 16/07/25 17:42 , Jim Reid wrote:
> 
>> 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?

As expressed on the page mentioned above, the intention of the process
is that interested parties respond to the email address quoted to be
sent the detailed RfP document. I'd invite you to do so if you are
interested to provide services. :)

> Are you expecting fully-baked and costed proposals by the mid-August deadline or just expressions of interest by then?

The mid-August deadline is for full proposals.

> 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?

We have tried to make these requirements as clear as possible, including
distinctions between mandatory and optional elements, and we have
documented those in the document that will be sent on request.

> 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.

It would indeed be unrealistic to expect detailed responses based on the
limited information that is on the mentioned web page. That is clearly
not our expectation.

> 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?

We are expecting experienced and professional service providers to
respond, who have the required infrastructure and service machinery in
place and for whom three weeks will be a suitable period to respond.

Kind regards,
Romeo