[dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria

> > Well, even if you do not want to change the status quo then this
> > complaint has one undoubtful point:
> > This whole BCP (whatever that includes in detail) is nowhere
> > documented. 
> It is now, since Anand replied to the list, in <68c1d8f7-7b0b-a5d0-d1
> ed-d75f215624d2 at ripe.net> . 
> 
> I suggest that we perform the absolute minimum of policy footwork to
> endorse this procedure as is. Because I feel we have a strong if not
> absolute consensus for carrying on as usual from those who spoke up
> here.
> 
> I'm a tad rusty on procedure here, so others will have to help with
> how
> we continue.
> 
> Regards,

Ok, thanks everyone for the input - i do see that the negative effects
of combining auth. resolver with open recurses outweight the positive
ones now.

I wouldnt have started all this if there was documentation about
requirements for reverse delegation nameservers somewhere. I do know
that time ago there were no open resolver checks (or they didnt work
properly), so my assumption was that this was silently introduced
(since i didnt find any "changelog").

Now that Anand has provided insight on how RIPE does its checks, this
should be easy to find for any upcoming questions.
I do agree with Mans that there is no new policy etc needed and we can
move on.

-
Jonas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190613/64475aee/attachment.sig>