[enum-wg] Italian Nameservers for 9.3.164.arpa. dead?

In line 

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
>  Of Jim Reid
>  Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:14 PM
>  To: Bernie Hoeneisen
>  Cc: RIPE ENUM WG
>  Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Italian Nameservers for 9.3.164.arpa. dead?
>  
>  On Jan 21, 2008, at 16:55, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
>  
>  > Would Ripe have the possibility to (temporarly) remove the
>  > delegation, if such situations occur?
>  
>  Personally speaking, I think this a very bad idea. It makes some sort
>  of sense from a technical and operational perspective. But it's the
>  start of a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what criteria
>  justify pulling a delegation? And why only for e164.arpa? IIUC, the
>  RIRs don't yank the delegations for reverse zones that have broken
>  DNS. And IANA doesn't do this for TLDs that have lame delegations or
>  dead name servers.
>  
>  I also think it's extremely unwise to involve the NCC in any sort of
>  subjective or qualitative decisions about the contents of e164.arpa.
>  This touches on prickly topics like National Sovereignty that are
>  best avoided. IMO the NCC should stick to the remit that's documented
>  in the exchanges of letters between IAB, ITU and the NCC. In other
>  words, it pretty much just does what the ITU asks them to do. :-)


I agree completely ... we've been there - done that. Even thinking of
opening up that can of worms means someone gets to camp in Geneva for the
duration and it isn't going to be me. There will be enough problems/issues
when the Infrastructure ENUM documents arrive in Geneva shortly.

It is my understanding that that an appropriate liaison statement on the
Infrastructure ENUM documents from the IAB to ITU SG-2 is due before IETF
Philadelphia.

>  
>  As John says, a mechanism could be developed to notify a Tier-1
>  registry (and ITU?) about a broken ENUM delegation. But this is
>  probably a discussion for the Powers That Be. It wouldn't hurt I
>  suppose for this WG to suggest a suitable mechanism. Any volunteers?


I think the bigger question is, given the lack of economic progress and
viability in e164.arpa deployments, does anyone care?

>  
>  BTW, does anyone ask Verisign to pull the plug on lamedelegation.com
>  (say) because its broken delegation is causing operational problems
>  for their mail server? If not, why is a different approach necessary
>  in e164.arpa for ENUM-aware SIP servers?