Hi all, On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, David Conrad wrote:
> Romeo, > > On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zw...@ripe.net> wrote: > > 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. > > Yay! > > > 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. > > Since .INT is currently not signed and RIPE is not using RIPE.INT, > signing RIPE.INT would seem to be a bit ... silly (particularly in > the light of #2). > > Since RIPE is not using RIPE.INT and that registration is out of > (current) policy with respect to registrants in that domain, is > there any reason why RIPE-NCC doesn't simply request RIPE.INT to be > removed from the INT zone? Is there any available statistics on how many HTTP clients that reaches ripe.int and then fetches ripe.net instead?
