On Wed, Apr 08, 1998 at 08:30:07AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 11:44 PM 4/7/98 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
services (not the web server) to another TLD. Perhaps it should be whois.ripe.int? Since the IPv6 equivalent of in-addr.arpa lives in .INT this makes sense to me.
I think that placing such critical domain references under .INT is a reasonable idea.
However, RIPE isn't a treaty organization and the rules for new .INT names is pretty specific. And IANA is rather careful about following the rules.
Jon Postel's directive is that any proposal needs to have very precise rules, so the first step in getting groups like RIPE authorized under .INT is to write a set of rules that will mechanically determine who is authorized.
Perhaps a place to start is by qualifying any organization that has administrative or operations responsibilities directly assigned by IANA.
d/ ________________________________________________________________________ Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253 dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205 www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Such critical resources simply should not be under any non-operational umbrella of any kind, and particularly not a treaty-driven one. If there ever was an argument for a TLD for network-management resources (such as whois servers and the like) this is it. However, the nameserver infrastructure for such a TLD needs to go *far* beyond *any* existing TLD's nameserver infrastructure. You're talking here about things that need near, or even at, military-grade reliability levels of service. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost