[dns-operations] [Ext] Re: Separating .ARPA operations from the root zone

[Wes Hardaker]

Kim Davies <kim.davies at iana.org> 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 * RFC 2870, while superseded, for a long time stood stating root servers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