On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Rob Seastrom <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> writes: > > I am in agreement, and oppose the policy as written; the section > > should not be removed. > Hi Jimmy, There are a lot of important functions that ARIN performs that > are not codified in the NRPM. For instance, bulk dumps of WHOIS and > the requirement for annual validation of POCs is in the NRPM, but the > technical details of how ARIN is to run a WHOIS server are not. >
Yes; however, a statement about some responsibility for the IN-ADDRs is not a mere technical detail of some extra service from ARIN. The reverse allocations go hand-in-hand with an allocation itself and are absolutely vital --- these details are probably more important for resource holders than WHOIS technical details. The number policy should make it clear where the resource holder has a responsibility to maintain these, and what kind of structure for the DNS services the resource holder will need to provide their customers' reverse DNS. The NRPM _does_ specify similar details about WHOIS; although it does not specify how resource holders are to actually operate their RWhois servers, we have things such as: "4.2.3.7.1. Reassignment Information Each IPv4 assignment containing a /29 or more addresses shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a distributed service" > The NRPM does not say anything about ip6.arpa, yet somehow it works fine. > > Could you provide some thoughts to back up why it ought to stay? > > Speaking as secondary shepherd for the proposal, we value your input. > > Thanks, > > -r > > > -- -JH
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
