[ncc-services-wg] Re: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385]
Andrei Robachevsky andrei at ripe.net
Fri Sep 8 13:57:56 CEST 2006
Dear Niall, Antoin, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 6 Sep 2006, at 15:52, Katie Petrusha wrote: > >> It is certainly possible to add a new organisation object type, >> like "ENUM", to be specifically used by the ENUM registries. >> This would involve the changes to the RIPE Database. >> >> I suggest you to contact ENUM-WG and DB-WG working group chairs >> to check first whether this change would require >> only a mailing list consensus or PDP, and then maybe put together >> a proposal for ENUM-WG and DB-WG and submit it to the appropriate >> mailing lists. > > I'm leaving my wg-co-chair hat off, for now. > > I'm disappointed that the RIPE-NCC hasn't seen fit to make a more > pro-active response in this case. > > In agreeing to become the ENUM Tier-0 DNS Operator, the RIPE-NCC > deliberately (if perhaps implicitly) created a new service and a > new category of customer. The RIPE-NCC appears to have assumed > (and, if so, quite reasonably) that existing tools and procedures > would be adequate to support the (formally, if subtly) different > business processes involved in dealing appropriately with customers > belonging to this new category. > > Only recently are some of these customers beginning to need to deal > rather formally with the RIPE-NCC. Consequently, they are starting > to drive the corresponding business processes. So far, a single > trivial, but significant, example has come to light of a mismatch > between what is currently possible using existing tools and procedures > and what is appropriate in dealing with a customer belonging to this > category. This should come as no great surprise; the unexpected will > happen in any new activity. > > It seems to me that having appropriate processes, including appropriate > language, in place for dealing with each category of customer is an > operational imperative for the RIPE-NCC, and that the RIPE-NCC should > take the initiative to deal with any inadequacy in this area. > Thank you very much for your feedback and the valid points you brought up. I think we simply were not sure what would be the best way to have such discussion and to better understand the requirements, which may clarify or exceed a simple request for a new org type. That's why we suggested to ask wg-chairs for advice. You are right in saying that we should have been more proactive in asking this advice or preparing a proposal ourselves, which we can certainly do based on yours and probably upcoming feedback. > Consider the following parable. The first customer arrives in a new > data-centre to rack some equipment, only to find that the air-conditioning > plant has not yet been switched on, and brings this to the attention > of the escorting data-centre employee. What should the data-centre > employee do: reach for the switch, or rather ask the customer to prepare > a proposal for agreement among the other interested parties which would > provide a policy framework within which the switch could be moved from > its existing position? > > I see this as an operational matter for the ENUM Tier-0 DNS Operator. > It's not technical; customer relations are part of operations, too. > Yes, but in the case of the RIPE Database we'd rather err to be more formal because of high visibility of changes and dependencies. > > > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > University College Dublin Computing Services > > PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) > Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 > > > Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
[ enum-wg Archives ]