Hello Daniel, In "draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-05.txt" you write:
RIPE appears to have the strongest policy in this area [ripe-185] indicating Local Internet Registries are required to perform IN-ADDR services, and delegate those as appropriate when address blocks are delegated. RIPE-185 has been obsoleted The correct reference is to RIPE NCCs reverse delegation policy is RIPE-302: Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region, (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/rev-del.html) There are no "requirements" for Local Internet Registries in this, or any other of our policy documents. To the suggestion that Regional Registries and any Local Registries to whom they delegate SHOULD establish and convey a policy to those to whom they delegate blocks that IN-ADDR mappings are required. Policies SHOULD require those receiving delegations to provide IN-ADDR service and/or delegate to downstream customers.. Formally Regional Registries do not set policy, it is the community that does so in a bottom up process. Besides these kind of policies are hard to enforce. This is one of the reason that RIPE 302 essentially reads that the RIPE NCC provide the reverse delegation service to the relevant LIRs, nothing more and nothing less. In other words this is one of the places where the normative language is orthogonal to reality. When the normative language is dropped the document is much more useful as it can be used as a reference when "we" are trying to convince folk that enabling reverse delegation is actually a good idea. I have difficulties with coming up with a good suggestion for text that would capture that. -- Olaf Kolkman New Projects, RIPE NCC ---------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman ---------------------------------| RIPE NCC . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
