IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] enough is enough

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Mon, 22 December 2014 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86011A888A for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:55:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYDL91r7ovAL for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EB661A0178 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::22] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::22]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DA0722720; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:55:45 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_40FFC7EC-131F-445E-B560-D9CBD4F41EFE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b3
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20141222065800.62ED8263C4C2@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:55:43 +0100
Message-Id: <7EF869A5-FCFD-4BC8-8AC8-0C724980FD9A@frobbit.se>
References: <20141220125805.GB20765@xs.powerdns.com> <20141220142506.C7EA12630502@rock.dv.isc.org> <A78F8417-AEA2-42BF-A7D5-96FE99DCBBBE@rfc1035.com> <20141220204337.4F47026313BC@rock.dv.isc.org> <7A31183A-CC1E-4F0A-A2EA-848B10B60A2B@insensate.co.uk> <E732A2F7-E467-4940-8A66-726FC894B4B3@frobbit.se> <20141221094454.GC13389@xs.powerdns.com> <11AD7639-D2AA-41F4-ACA4-70190E449253@rfc1035.com> <20141222040653.890E4263B845@rock.dv.isc.org> <B4987304-459A-4835-8162-2BA469C3C4F7@frobbit.se> <20141222065800.62ED8263C4C2@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/uTxSprobnBB4D0M5woIn2Lw47j0
Cc: DNSEXT Group Working <dnsext@ietf.org>, bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] enough is enough
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:55:50 -0000

> On 22 Dec 2014, at 07:58, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> 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).

That is exactly my point. As long as registrant and registry disagree about _policy_ we will see issues like these, regardless of what the protocol police say.

You see it, as I expressed in my list, regarding proxy registrations, lame delegations and more.

If you look at the various TLDs, you see much less issues with proxy and lame delegations where the policy is such that:

- One can register a domain name without delegating

- Anyone can register a domain name

And my point is that before we have those basic rules in a TLD, chasing down registrants, registrars, DNS hosting providers and whoever else will have limited if any effect.

In TLDs where those are the basic rules, then the protocol police might have effect.

   Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email