Kim Davies <[email protected]> writes: > > I am confused as to what would happen. Either, the root zone operators > > will drop the .arpa zone, or they will keep serving it under a new > > agreement. > > It is worth noting that basically the entire publication and distribution of > the arpa zone is not contracted or otherwise covered by any agreements: > > * The RZMA, where ICANN contracts Verisign to produce and disseminate the > root zone to the RSOs, has no mention of .arpa; > > * Agreements that exist right now for individual RSOs don't mention .arpa > <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-server-operators-2015-06-01-en>; > > * RFC 2870, while superseded, for a long time stood stating root servers > "MUST NOT provide secondary service for any zones other than the root > and root-servers.net zones"
Though we don't have an agreement on the above mentioned page, speaking with my USC/ISI root server operator hat on: we're here to do as the community needs and if there is a desire to separate .arpa away from the infrastructure that serves the root, great. If there is a desire to keep them together, great: we certainly won't stop serving it as "that would be (extremely) bad for the Internet". I suspect some of these questions surrounding the long standing missing contracts/mous/etc around the service of the root, root-servers.net and probably .arpa will probably/hopefully come out of the ICANN GWG as well. Whether to push this work forward, and whether to push it forward before or after the GWG's done with their work is something that the community needs to carefully consider. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
