[ncc-services-wg] Re: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385]

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