Re: [dnsext] enough is enough

[bert hubert <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:33:17AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > The domain x.y.z fails to resolve using our software, and we have determined
> > that this is because the software or hardware publishing the DNS details of
> > x.y.z is not conforming to the DNS standards.
> As Jim says, your idea is nice as it is, and there is nothing wrong with
> the email -- but we have no idea what so ever where to send it.

Actually, as the authors of a resolver, we know exactly where to send it. To
the people telling me I need to fix my resolver so it works with broken
domain X. 

And in turn, we've found that (together with resolver operators) we can
quickly find out what broken hardware or software is behind the issue -
Citrix Netscalers this time round. It helps if large operators (people with
tens of millions of customers) tell them they need to clean up their act.

The REAL issue right now is that we can't resist fixing a broken domain
"because it works with Google/Unbound/Bind/Microsoft, so you must fix it". 

What is needed is a pact that none of us will respect that argument on its
own if a domain actually should be broken.

> The best path forward is I think still for you to publish clear and crisp
> information like this on your web page so that it is found when searching
> for help with Google and other search engines.
> 
> I.e. as long as no one have any issues with the brokenness, it will not be fixed.

Exactly. It should actually break therefore. If you own dodgy equipment or
use bad software, your domain should receive lots of reports of brokenness.

> If not even TLDs are hosted correctly, and registry policies are such that
> it encourages broken DNS configurations, I feel there is not much The
> Protocol Police can do about it.

I'm afraid this is true. But if all big implementation decide to no longer
play the game, the (mostly) load balancer implementations will have to clean
up their act.

I also note that quite a lot of problems are AAAA related. This in itself is
an impediment to IPv6 adoption!

	Bert