Re: [dnsext] enough is enough

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, =?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4lt
str=C3=B6m?= writes:
> > On 22 dec 2014, at 05:06, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > To my knowledge no one has attempted to get nameservers upgraded
> > by sending email to delegated server operators.
>
> Maybe because one do not know who these name server operators are. And in
> the cases one do (like in some ccTLDs), that has other drawbacks.

Send it to the SOA RNAME.  If that does not work send it to the
registrant (by the registrar if need be).  They are ultimately
responsible for the domain.  If those contact methods bounce initiate
the proceedures for broken contacts.

> > Sending email to TLD operators does have a effect.
>
> Well, well...
>
> > Whether that can be replicated the next level down we need to see.
>
> Some TLD registries have tried to contact DNS operators, some contact the
> registrant, some contact the registrar.

The registrant is ultimately responsible for picking the registrar
and DNS operator if it is not themselves.  It is the registrars job
to contact the registrant on behalf of the registry where the
contract precludes direct contact.

> > Additionally classic lameness will come back over time as it is a
> > configuration issue.
>
> And my point was only that enough registries do have a policy that
> REQUIRE lame delegations to be able to just register a domain name (i.e.
> one can not register without delegating at the same time). Crazy!
>
> But as you say, this is a configuration issue, and not a software issue.

No.  That is a policy issue.

Just because you do not like the policy is not a reason to not
configure servers if that is the policy of the parent domain.  It's
not like they won't be running some servers for some zones.  Those
servers can be configured with minimal zones (soa + ns records).

>    Patrik
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]