On 13 Nov 2014, at 14:54, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> Signed PGP part
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Most of the zones that the RIPE NCC signs with DNSSEC have trust anchors
> in their parent zones, with the exception of these three zones:
>
> 151.76.62.in-addr.arpa
> ripe.int
> ripen.cc
>
> We have been
On 13 Nov 2014, at 17:38, Peter Koch wrote:
> I'd rather not see the RIPE NCC further endorse the DLV technology and
> service by continuing to submit key material there.
+100
What's this? Peter and myself in agreement? Something is wrong. :-)
On 13 Nov 2014, at 20:50, Peter Koch wrote:
> So, again: who is to be convinced to make INT signed?
Runs away screaming...
The politics around .int and its oversight are... well... interesting. It might
be inadvisable to dive into that while the IANA arrangements are in flux.
On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:19, Tony Finch wrote:
> Peter Koch wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather not see the RIPE NCC further endorse the DLV technology and
>> service by continuing to submit key material there. DLV was meant as a
>> temporary deployment aid and might have been a good idea at its time.
>
> W
On 18 Nov 2014, at 08:22, Romeo Zwart wrote:
> There was an explicit suggestion on the list about using ripe.int as a
> 'lever' to get .int signed, hence my comment.
I think you are mistaken Romeo. Peter asked some meta issues on policy and
procedural matters around the signing of .int: ie who
On 17 Nov 2014, at 15:49, Romeo Zwart wrote:
> 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)
On 18 Nov 2014, at 14:59, Rob Evans wrote:
> Isn't this really, as Romeo puts it, "an operational decision" for the RIPE
> NCC?
Er no. It's a decision for the community which domain names it needs or wants
to use to identify itself. After all the NCC should respond to the needs of the
RIPE co
On 18 Nov 2014, at 14:50, Jorma Mellin wrote:
> I remember the day when ripe.net -domain was unreachable because of
> failure to renew it. The hassle was pretty big, as it took a long time to
> convince the domain registry (at U.S) to understand that "yes, we really need
> this at european terr
On 18 Nov 2014, at 14:59, Rob Evans wrote:
> If they want to sit on a domain that bears a resemblance to the company
> identity, I'll leave that up to them...
That way lies madness: ripe.$TLD-of-the-week.
IMO one domain name is enough. If someone can make a convincing case to use
more than th
On 18 Nov 2014, at 15:51, Rob Evans wrote:
> I certainly don't want the RIPE community to be associated with theripen.cc
> domain, but if the RIPE NCC wants to use it (or at least reserve it), we
> might think it's a mistake, but it's the company's mistake to make unless we
> get into a level
Colleagues, there's been very little response or discussion about the procedure
which was proposed at the beginning of October.
I think it's now time to start a "Last Call" on this. If anyone has any tweaks
to he proposed text or counter proposals, please speak up now! It would be
helpful if an
On 25 Nov 2014, at 12:37, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic.
Nick, thanks for your comments.
I'm both surprised and disappointed. Surprised because the mood of the room/WG
appears to be the proposed text is "good enough". Nobody has advocated making
radical surger
On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:54, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> You're welcome for the comments. I wasn't able to make the london wg
> session and only subscribed to the mailing list on Oct 11, which was a
> couple of days after the previous discussion about chair proposals ended.
> Timing is everything, appar
Happy new year everyone.
The list has been silent about the draft selection procedure. This means it's
not possible to decide if there's a consensus or not so we can declare victory
and move on. Sigh. Could I ask you all to review the proposal and comment on
the list?
One sticking point appear
On 7 Jan 2015, at 20:15, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 12:41, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
>> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every
>> year.
>
> This is also semantically non-deterministic in
On 11 Jan 2015, at 19:16, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> But it was fewer words and simpler to say "every second RIPE meeting".
"every calendar year" is even simpler and fewer words than that Nick. :-)
I doubt it will matter or if anyone really cares when the selection process
kicks in at some point d
Colleagues, here is what I hope could be a co-chair selection process that the
WG can adopt. It's been tweaked to take account of recent feedback and should
now be free of ambiguities. The most significant change is a new Clause 7: how
to handle things whenever an unforseen situation arises. ie
On 5 May 2015, at 16:26, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> in the case where two chairs are due to resign in the same year, the
> process for deciding who stands down is still ambiguous. When this was
> discussed in January, there was some consensus that this should be
> clarified.
See clause 7.
On 30 Jun 2015, at 15:25, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> There's no policy requirement, but it's good practice for the NCC to
> consult with the community for something like this. It keeps one side
> honest and the other side well-informed.
Indeed.
> FWIW, I'm in favour of dropping all the inactive /
On 30 Jun 2015, at 13:41, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Is this considered bad practice now? Was there a policy change I missed?
Hi Ralf. AFAICT there has never been any policy in this area: that's another
rat-hole we don't need to explore for now.
The NCC has from time to time registered domain names w
On 30 Jun 2015, at 17:28, Ralf Weber wrote:
>> Holding on to these domains and continuing to maintain them "just because"
>> seems unwise. ICANN already has ripe. on a reserved list so there is
>> no chance of them going to an impostor.
> ripen.*, but not ripe(-)ncc.*. Will be interesting to s
On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:53, Peter Koch wrote:
> This is probably an exception for the lack of a drop catching risk,
> but keeping the domain to maintain a stake in the INT domain
> might be OK.
That is a remarkably bad idea. The .int domain's supposed to be for
international treaty organisations.
On 3 Aug 2015, at 11:25, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> We have now completed this configuration change.
Well done to you and your team Anand!
Colleagues, it may seem odd to be doing this at the height of the summer
holidays when the next RIPE meeting is 3 months away.
If you have suggestions for agenda topics or presentations for the WG
session(s) in Bucharest, could you please contact the co-chairs at
dns-wg-cha...@ripe.net? Thanks.
> On 17 Sep 2015, at 09:13, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> We have completed the release of some currently unused domains.
Thanks very much Romeo. It’s good to know that we’re rid of this cruft.
On 27 Sep 2015, at 07:26, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:21:06PM +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
>> https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/
>>
>> There are still few slots remaining for a final RIPE 71 programme and
>> RIPE Programme Committee will accept new proposals until 11 Oct
Colleagues, you will be aware that we have adopted a procedure for the regular
appointment of a WG co-chair. It is now going to be invoked for the first time.
If you are interested in helping to run the WG, now's your chance to step
forward.
The main responsibility for a co-chair is to prepare
On 12 Oct 2015, at 15:19, Gert Doering wrote:
> Maybe my old eyes are failing me - but is this to add a WG co-chair to
> the existing group, or is one of you stepping down - and if yes, who?
Hi Gert.
The object of this exercise is not to add another co-chair. Our procedure only
allows for 2 o
On 12 Oct 2015, at 15:49, Peter Koch wrote:
> And this is meant literally, i.e., after more than a decade
> as a DNS WG co-chair I will not make myself available for another election
> or appointment. It has been a pleasure to serve this community in that role,
> and I'll promise (or threaten, i
Colleagues, here's a reminder that there is still time to nominate candidates.
Please post statements of support on the list for those who have been
nominated. This will help the disintersted co-chairs make a consensus judgement
about who should be appointed. If there's no clear consensus, it wi
Colleagues, here's the draft agenda for RIPE71. Please note that this is
subject to change, most likely in the running order. A definitive agenda will
be circulated in a couple of weeks.
I'll remind you all that the WG co-chair appointment process is under way.
There's still time for volunteers
The agenda for next week's meeting has been updated. Here's the latest version.
Please note that things are not finalised and there might be further tweaks to
the agenda or running order.
#
# $Id: agenda,v 1.7 2015/11/11 14:08:51 jim Exp $
#
FIRST SESSION
A. U
Colleagues, there's still time left to nominate candidates and to express
support for those who have been nominated. The response so far from the WG has
been disappointing and that's making it awkward to decide if consensus has been
reached.
Please speak up! Even if it's just to say "meh". :-)
On 12 Nov 2015, at 23:45, Jim Martin wrote:
> Can he simply be appointed by acclamation?
Jim, the idea is the WG decides by consensus who fills the vacancy. It will be
easier to make that consensus judgement if there are more statements of support
(or opposition) for the nominees. Clearly, it
Colleagues, here are the minutes from Bucharest. Please let the WG co-chairs
know if there are any errors or omissions. Thanks.
ripe71minutes
Description: Binary data
There have been no further comments on the draft documents since the RIPE
meeting in Bucharest. We can declare victory and get these published/adopted.
Some minor tweaks were suggested when the drafts were originally circulated for
comment. Romeo has taken account of these and will incorporate t
On 21 Dec 2015, at 12:51, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> I am happy to report that we have completed the roll-over of the keys
> of all our zones, and upgraded the signatures to RSA/SHA256.
Well done! Congratulations to you and your colleagues Anand for the successful
completion of this task.
Are th
>
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 08:03, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> Not necessarily RIPE Database related, but I thought I'd point out that
> ICANN is considering replacing WHOIS for gTLD:
>
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-01-04-en
Hi Shane. I think you’re grossly overstating things.
IMO a call
Thanks for the update Romeo.
Best wishes to you and your colleagues for your damage limitation efforts.
> On 7 Apr 2016, at 13:57, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> However, to be better prepared for extreme traffic floods, we will work with
> an external party to provide additional DNS service capacity for serving the
> ripe.net zone.
Romeo, this is great news!
IMO, “outsourcing” some DNS hosting to co
On 21 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>> try registering the puny code version?
>> xn--5o7dx5d.com
>
> Genius idea! Trying it...
>
> Domain.com tells me that I can get it for .COM, .CLUB, .NET, .US, .ORG,
> and .ME but that sadly it is already taken
> in .CO, .ONLINE, .SITE, .WEBSI
Colleagues, here are the minutes from our meeting in Amsterdam last year. My
apologies for the unacceptable delay in getting these circulated.
Please let us know if there are any errors or omissions.
DNS WG - Session 1
RIPE 70
13 May 2015
WG co-Chairs: Peter Koch, Jim Reid, Jaap Akkerhuis
> On 24 May 2016, at 13:41, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> Please let us know what you think about this idea.
Before we take this idea forward, could someone please suggest metrics and
milestones that could be used to assess the success or failure of this
activity? For bonus points, it would be good
> On 25 May 2016, at 10:50, João Damas wrote:
>
> Actually Jim, first comes the poll of the community to see if this fits,
Well Joao the community already seems to be heading in that direction. YMMV.
That said, it would be helpful for the WG to have a better understanding of the
requirements
> On 26 May 2016, at 13:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> 1. Gaurab and I think that there should be an exemption for ccTLD who
> do not currently have IPv6 service. (There are a few tens of ccTLD
> who do not yet have IPV6, and I would like the RIPE NCC to be
> able to help them get IPv6 service
> On 26 May 2016, at 14:44, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> Following the guidelines of the working group, we (the NCC) have
> recently started reviewing eligibility of ccTLDs based on the existing
> document text. If the document moves back to a 'limbo-state' based on
> renewed discussion in the WG that
> On 6 Jul 2016, at 13:21, Max Grobecker
> wrote:
>
> You wrote:
>
>> You can’t blame your service provider for hijacking your DNS traffic or
>> running DPI on their network these days. In fact most of them use DPI to
>> some extent for various reasons.
>
> Yes, I would blame my ISP for tha
> On 6 Jul 2016, at 20:36, Max Grobecker
> wrote:
>
> "Do not do illegal stuff with your internet connection" and "We will hijack
> your DNS requests (and maybe other services, too) just to make sure you don't
> do illegal stuff" are two completely different things.
Indeed. And sometimes ISP
> On 25 Jul 2016, at 15:59, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> The RIPE NCC requests proposals for service from a DNS service provider
> in order to improve the resiliency of the RIPE NCC's zones, especially
> ripe.net.
>
> The submission deadline is Sunday, 14 August 2016.
>
> For more details please see
> On 25 Jul 2016, at 16:56, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> On 16/07/25 17:42 , Jim Reid wrote:
>> The above URL doesn’t say very much. Could you please provide some more
>> details?
>
> As expressed on the page m
> On 25 Aug 2016, at 14:18, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Is Jim trying to get away, or willing to serve another term?
Jim is not trying to get away. He will be going away. Well, as a co-chair
anyway. I’ll still be coming to RIPE meetings.
I’ve co-chaired the WG for 15 years (yikes!). So it’s time
> On 25 Aug 2016, at 14:34, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> In that case, enjoy your retirement :-) - "chair emeritius".
Thanks Gert.
Though I’m not quite ready to become a piece of furniture! :-)
Colleagues, there is still plenty of time to nominate candidates for the
upcoming WG co-chair vacancy. Anyone can be nominated. They can even nominate
themselves! Details of the role’s responsibilities are outlined in RIPE
Document 542 tough this is a little out of date. Dave, Jaap and myself ar
> On 20 Sep 2016, at 17:46, tjw ietf wrote:
>
> Is it too late to hitch onto the Shane Kerr Bandwagon?
Not at all Tim.
Feel free to attach yourself to as many other bandwagons as you want to. Or
even create some new ones.
A nice thing about consensus based decision-making is people are able
There’s still time for people to volunteer. But not much. Anyone who wishes to
stand is leaving it rather late. They should do so before the end of this week.
At present, two candidates have emerged and there have only been a few
statements of support for them. This makes it a little uncomfortab
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>
> in the light of transparency, will resp. can the contract be disclosed?
>
> If not, is it a contract (draft) that has been put on the table by the
> NCC? Or, vice versa, VeriSign's standard contract for such services? Or
> rather - as a r
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 09:54, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> The proposal submitted by VeriSign Sàrl (“Verisign”) was the best fit.
> We subsequently signed a contract with Verisign, which comes into effect
> before the end of this year. The contract is for the period of one year,
> with the intention to
On 18 Oct 2016, at 11:04, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 18.10.2016 11:36, Jim Reid wrote:
>> The contractual terms are implementation detail and therefore out of
>> scope for the WG. This also applies to the RFP and NCC’s selection
>> procedure.
>
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:53, Antonio Prado wrote:
>
> besides, I cannot fully understand how this WG could ask the NCC board
> to investigate "if we have reason to believe the rfp was unfair or
> defective in some way" when, actually, you just said "the contractual
> terms are out of scope for th
> On 26 Oct 2016, at 11:34, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> I am curious what kinds of legal restrictions would prevent publishing
> a contract, but that's not really important. They exist!
Shane, commercial contracts are almost always confidential because they contain
information which is commercially
In case anyone missed this event, the new KSK for the root got added today.
Though it’s not signing anything yet.
Thanks to everone who made this happen.
> On 28 Sep 2017, at 11:22, Nico CARTRON wrote:
>
> it was tweeted this morning
Sigh. You would hope ICANN’s communications team knew better.
It’s disappointing that there’s been silence on all of the usual mailing lists
where you’d expect this information would have been announced. Perhaps m
> On 28 Sep 2017, at 11:50, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> wrote:
>
> They seem to have made the announcement about 12 hours or so ago, so why not
> give them a bit of time? (
Surely 12 hours is more than enough?
Besides, if ICANN's comms people had time to put out a tweet (ugh!) and update
> On 28 Sep 2017, at 12:53, David Conrad wrote:
>
> As far as I am aware, nothing is on fire. Given the lack of time criticality,
> I would have thought it’d be more important to the technical communities to
> have more concrete data to present. Given propagation delays in non-technical
> cir
> On 21 Oct 2017, at 11:16, Сергій Співак wrote:
>
> There is a problem with a F root-server node connected to UA-IX traffic
> exchange point (ix.net.ua, AS15645) since October, 14.
This is out of scope for the WG list. However there may well be ops people from
ISC who are here.
You should p
A bunch of vulnerabilities have been found in the Authoritative and Recursor
servers. Here’s the list of security advisories:
http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2017/q4/329
I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned on these lists yet.
> On 28 Nov 2017, at 11:51, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> I hope most people track security bulletins through other distribution
> channels than dns-wg@ripe.net.
I would hope so too Job.
However using these sorts of lists to get an even wider distribution wouldn’t
hurt. YMMV.
There are probably q
> On 28 Nov 2017, at 12:34, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> Note that there was an article in the Internet tabloid:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/28/powerdns_dnssec_bugs/
>
> The "explanations" mix up DNS with BGP! "for example, if a network is
> tricked into advertising itself as th
> On 24 Apr 2018, at 15:33, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> Now that the name ns-v6.ripe.net is no longer in use by anyone, we are
> going to delete it from the ripe.net zone.
Anand, could you clarify what you mean by “no longer in use”? Has it gone from
all the reverse zones that referenced it? Ar
> On 24 Apr 2018, at 15:51, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> At least this is a good sign:
> https://github.com/search?q=ns-v6.ripe.net&type=Code
Thanks Job. Though I wasn’t thinking (or caring) about github crapware. I was
thinking about stuff that might have been written for internal use -- say at
On 24 Apr 2018, at 16:07, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> Even if we *could* look at the queries, and they showed queries for
> "ns-v6.ripe.net", it doesn't mean that the name is in use.
Well, I would say that if the name’s in the query traffic, that means it’s “in
use”. For some definition of that t
> On 24 Apr 2018, at 16:33, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 04:25:59PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
>> Thanks Job. Though I wasn???t thinking (or caring) about github crapware. I
>> was thinking about stuff that might have been written for intern
> On 10 Jun 2018, at 10:39, Antonio Prado via dns-wg wrote:
>
> does the SLD .gov.* within european countries' ccTLDs identify only
> central government bodies and not local government or other public
> administrations as well?
No. Well, not under gov.uk. The domain has local authorities as we
So, who’s stocked up on canned food and ammunition in case it all goes horribly
wrong at 16:00 UTC tomorrow? :-)
> On 17 Oct 2018, at 15:51, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> I would like to help get RFC 7344 support into the RIPE database, so what
> do we need to do next to make it happen?
You probably should start a conversation in this WG about what needs to be done
-- problem statement, possible solutions, etc. O
> On 10 Jun 2019, at 17:04, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> I couldn't find out how to use the policy process to get RFC 7344 CDS
>> automation in place :-(
Tony, all you need to do is write a proposal and post it to dns-wg@ripe.net.
I’m sure the WG co-chairs will be happy to advise.
> sounds more l
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 17:28, Jonas Frey wrote:
>
> Run a open resolver and secure it propely
These two things are mutually exclusive. Sorry.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 17:28, Jonas Frey wrote:
>
> As previously noted most (if not all) ccTLD registrys do not block when
> a open recursor is found. (C/N/O: Verisign pass, EU EURID: pass, DE DE-
> NIC: pass with warn).
> Now that these ccTLDs deal with *alot* more nameservers than RIPE
> (prob
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 17:58, Jonas Frey wrote:
>
>>> Run a open resolver and secure it propely
>> These two things are mutually exclusive. Sorry.
>>
>
> Well, then all of these (running open resolvers) must be wrong:
> - Google
> - Cloudflare
> - Quad9
> ...
They’ve taken business decisions t
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 19:40, Jonas Frey wrote:
>
> I do see 3 major benefits to combine/unify these:
> - "saving" IP addresses (depending of how many you run of course[1])
> - less effort managing (not having multiple places for configuration
> thus unifiying [automated] setup)
> - saving ressou
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 21:06, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> we don't really need this because it's not fixing a problem.
Indeed. There’s no problem here that needs fixing.
> ... the RIPE NCC's record for handling dns delegation over the years shows
> that they're doing a good job and unless this c
> On 3 Mar 2020, at 11:38, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> The RIPE NCC runs a pair of hidden masters for transferring in zones
> from various sources, and distributiong these zones to the K-root and
> reverse DNS anycast clusters that we operate.
>
> On Thursday 5 March 2020, between 12:00 and 17:
FYI.
If you have comments or questions, please contact Kim or one of the TCRs.
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Kim Davies
> Subject: [RZERC] Contingency plans for the next Root KSK Ceremony
> Date: 26 March 2020 at 01:52:29 GMT
> To: "rz...@icann.org"
>
> Colleagues,
>
> (Feel free to
Microsoft has announced Office 365 Exchange Online is going to support DNSSEC
and DANE:
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/exchange-team-blog/support-of-dane-and-dnssec-in-office-365-exchange-online/ba-p/1275494
> On 14 Oct 2020, at 14:29, Dave Knight wrote:
>
> The nomination period for the RIPE DNS working group chair selection has
> completed with a single volunteer, Joao Damas
I support Joao’s reappointment.
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 18:47, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>
> o no +1s. leave it until the actual election
RIPE does not vote!!! Important decisions get taken by consensus, not elections.
It’s beyond stupid to talk about an election or use that mechanism when there
are no eligibility criteria on w
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 20:30, Janos Zsako wrote:
>
> I think putting a term limit may prevent talented people from serving the
> community in spite of their willingness to continue their useful work.
I agree and disagree with this Janos. Term limits might well mean somebody good
gets forced to
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Dave Knight wrote:
>
> The new process has been exercised several times since then with these results
>
> Nov 2015, RIPE 71 Peter Koch was succeeded by Dave Knight for a 3 year term
> Oct 2016, RIPE 73 Jim Reid was succeeded by Shane Kerr for a
> On 16 Oct 2020, at 00:00, Dave Knight wrote:
>
>> Maybe have the outgoing and existing chairs explicitly go out and
>> encourage someone who hasn't served before to volunteer?
>
> I struggle to reconcile our efforts toward impartiality with the notion of
> having the chairs encouraging a p
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 23:40, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>
> Succession planning is good but placing the burden on the chairs themselves
> seems a lot to ask.
I strongly disagree Leo. For one thing, any burden from things like this is why
WG co-chairs get the big bucks. :-) When you’re in a leadership
> On 11 Nov 2021, at 17:52, Andrew Campling
> wrote:
>
> From a strong field, I would like to cast a vote for Brett Carr as co-chair.
Andrew, it’s a SELECTION process. We don’t “vote”. RIPE takes important
decisions by consensus. Since RIPE is open to all, an election implies there’s
som
> On 12 Nov 2021, at 10:38, Andrea Kurucsó wrote:
>
> Hi All, please take me out of this mailing list. I haven't been working in
> this for years, and I keep getting the emails.
How is the mailing list software supposed to know what you are or aren’t
working on?
Visit https://www.ripe.net/
> On 12 Nov 2021, at 10:36, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> I love both candidates equally. I must protest making me choose.
>
> Moritz if the group wants to dig into more research discussions, but I like
> Brett's TLD and operations view of the world.
>
> I can't choose, sorry. Both will serve w
> On 12 Nov 2021, at 11:21, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> One place I worked we would make decisions on who would end up with some
> maintenance nobody wanted with a spirited match of rock-paper-scissors.
Ooh! I forgot we could also have a meta-meta-discussion about what sort of
random selection
> On 12 Nov 2021, at 11:40, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> from a practical point of view, it would help if emails to dns-wg@ripe.net
> included a footer on how to unsubscribe.
That info is already in the mail headers of every message Nick. Putting it in a
footer just means there would be another
> On 2 Dec 2021, at 13:46, Petr Špaček wrote:
>
> Why not make the TTL _dynamic_, based on time of last change in the RIPE
> database?
Because it’s a very bad idea?
1) The RIPE database and its reverse zone DNS data are orthogonal things
(modulo the nameserver objects for bits of the revers
> On 15 Dec 2021, at 11:30, Chris Buckridge wrote:
>
> Apologies for the delay here - was hoping to have some more substantial
> information, but in the absence of that, our colleagues at the European
> Commission have been able to share the content of the four slides that they
> delivered a
> On 12 Jan 2022, at 17:09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> Does it mean that the machines will not be on AWS or other US hoster?
Stephane, that’s really a question for the EU officials who are in charge of
the CFP.
FWIW I think using AWS or whatever outside the EU for part of the resolver
> On 12 Jan 2022, at 17:35, Ana Sen wrote:
>
> Would anybody know which stakeholders have the capacity to apply for this
> call?
I can think of several. But I won’t identify them by name.
The obvious candidates are any of the larger (anycast) DNS providers, TLD
registries, major registrars
> On 11 May 2022, at 12:53, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 3 May, we performed a DNSSEC Key Signing Key (KSK) roll-over for
> all the zones that we maintain and sign. During this roll-over, we dropped
> the Zone Signing Keys (ZSKs), and began signing the zones with just their new
> KS
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
