[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Eliminate Lame Server policy

David Kessens david.kessens at nsn.com
Wed Sep 12 18:37:36 EDT 2007


On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:34:22AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 09:29:07PM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:52:32PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > > With several recent issues staff has indicated a reluctance to take
> > > action if items were not spelled out in the NRPM.  There is at least
> > > one proposal for the next meeting aimed at giving staff more clarity
> > > in the NRPM so they have backing to take action.
> > 
> > This is not something you can fix by means of spelling out more and
> > more operational details in policies. In fact, this would make the
> > problem worse.
> You misunderstood my statement.

I don't think I misunderstood your statement at all (see below).

> I don't want to add operational details to the NRPM, and I think
> the debate about what is a "lame" server only reenforces why that
> is a bad idea.  If there are operational details in the NRPM they
> should be removed.
> However, my fear is that without section 7.2 ARIN staff will feel
> they have no authority to police DNS delegations.

Let's not put things in policies because of fear but because they
actually need to be there. 

ARIN explicitly is entrusted with maintaining the reverse tree for
address blocks that it allocates. I expect them to be capable of doing
the right thing which normally includes not putting in place and/or
removing delegations that don't work etc. Contrary to your fears, not
properly maintaining the tree would mean that they are not doing their
job. The policy process is explicitly not designed to deal with
quality of service issues by ARIN. Let's leave the management of the
reverse tree to professionals instead of the policy makers on this list.

David Kessens

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list