[CRISP-TEAM] draft proposal issue: reverse DNS

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Dear colleagues,

Ernest wrote on 12/12/14 09:10:> Izumi Okutani wrote thus on 12/11/14,
1:06 PM:
[...]
> One issue I did not see discussed yet is around .arpa - I recall the
> NRO EC suggested the CRISP team appoints a liaison to the IETF to
> ensure that the proposal from IETF meets the numbering's community's
> expectations as far as .arpa is concerned.

Before discussing a specific solution, I'd like to better understand the
relationships between the parties involved, which in this context are
not entirely clear to me.

As I see this, the domains in question: ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa are
delegated to IANA by the IETF (RFC3172, RFC3152). The IETF also defined
the policy. E.g. for ip6.arpa: "Names within this zone are to be further
delegated to the regional IP registries in accordance with the
delegation of IPv6 address space to those registries. The names
allocated should be hierarchic in accordance with the address space
assignment."

The administration of these domains is "a technical work item per the
existing ICANN/IETF MOU (RFC2860)" (see
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2010/transition-of-in-addr-arpa-generation/),
so strictly speaking the performance of this function is under the
*IETF* purview (although I am not sure if/what SLAs are defined for this).

Now, if one looks at this from the perspective of the NTIA contract, the
administration of these domains and delegations is out of scope. Add to
this that these sub-registries are not mentioned in the IETF response
either.

Perhaps a good way forward would be to leave this issue outside this
particular project altogether. The only problem is that the RIRs will
probably need to draft a contract with the SLAs and this is one of the
"IETF IANA" (but not "NTIA IANA") services they are getting, so it will
have to be addressed.

This issue is somewhat related to the shared management of the top IP
address registry (see my mail "draft proposal: overlaps"). So I am
thinking of the AoC mentioned in ARIN's draft proposal between the RIRs
and the IETF. Perhaps an even better form would be an MoU that will take
the spirit of the proposed AoC and the substance related to this
particular service (+ the management of the shared registry), but IANAL ;)

What do others think?

Regards,

Andrei