Dear Collegues, Our message from last Thursday (see https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2014-November/002981.html) has stirred a significant amount of discussion. Trying to summarize the responses on the mailing list, I came to the below list of topics:
/1 Why does any zone under 62.in-addr.arpa have to be in the DLV? Since 62/8 is under RIPE NCC control, it can be properly signed. /2 Why does RIPE NCC still submit key material to the DLV? RIPE NCC should no longer endorse out-of-band mechanisms for key publication. /3 Discussion around the current use of ripe.int. /4 Discussion around the current use of ripen.cc. I will try to answer each of these point separately. 1/ While the RIPE NCC controls 62/8, the delegations under it are not necessarily under our control. Specifically the /24 mentioned in the original post is part of 62.76/16, which is delegated to the Russian Institute for Public Networks (RIPN). RIPN does not sign its zones, therefore we have been using an out of band mechanism. 2/ The RIPE NCC has been publishing this key material out of band for historical reasons. If there is a consensus in the WG that this is no longer needed, or even undesirable, we are happy to phase out the use of the DLV. 3/ RIPE NCC has been assigned ripe.int in the early 2000's. We are currently not using ripe.int, other than by redirecting to ripe.net. If the community advises the RIPE NCC to request IANA to sign .int, we can spend some effort on this, but we'd like to follow up on this separately. 4/ Ripen.cc is a historical artifact. RIPE NCC is not currently using it and we are not planning any future use. Releasing the domain is an operational decision that we may take in the future. Kind regards, Romeo Zwart RIPE NCC
