Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.

Jelte Jansen <jelte.jansen@sidn.nl> Thu, 12 November 2015 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Jelte.Jansen@sidn.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013D11ACD45 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:13:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.084
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 JG9n7j7xvNn3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:13:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from arn2-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4C61ACD52 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:13:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=subject:to:references:from:x-enigmail-draft-status:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip:x-clientproxiedby; bh=HSpf8kB3palISmwfVwz03FYDoU0zZvbME5iQg4yCcQ0=; b=pdeJLAgfiQZWzsccvMgAI59zEYCr/yHRTh4udCu4i318Fce8a9eCZuPCKlZlEuirmtucwjatYEZCixdPClH06RKcXihZvnPH4bRpHTLdvNjpBjgSYMvivwDpYQfPfe+4LDzdVXq2UxXUUWXSi3pGsCwz1n2ooWmx+7rumkDg3nbdo31IcZT5vNJI0Lq0ZmqxLmpO5H4HHTwiGlABOWU1FNo4M3ZR6Crw6R5f+HjcayEK8P6W0TOcvceGynl+FEQ9HcP03D3bxTU4budhMPFVj9NP7xqBZeJ5ERagDIefLAwrky4KRnyxLo/V/ONfInZYWoi1W/V+OpA9OvRQhR4+7w==
Received: from ka-mbx01.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.177]) by arn2-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id tACEDA2W012768-tACEDA2Y012768 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL); Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:13:10 +0100
Received: from zen.sidnlabs.nl (94.198.152.216) by ka-mbx01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:13:14 +0100
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20151105235402.39FFC3BF2F29@rock.dv.isc.org> <20151110152511.6f1a1c20@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20151111104833.GB29290@sources.org> <20151111111858.DBE073C86023@rock.dv.isc.org> <5643DDA9.1030707@gmail.com>
From: Jelte Jansen <jelte.jansen@sidn.nl>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56449E75.5040001@sidn.nl>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:13:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5643DDA9.1030707@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [94.198.152.216]
X-ClientProxiedBy: ka-hubcasn01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.171) To ka-mbx01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.177)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-bw77aaG5BIUA7VwGJ239fZyN84>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:13:32 -0000

On 11/12/2015 01:30 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
> (as chair)
> 
> I was the one who told Mark I liked the document but we needed to do
> less badgering of TLDs (my words, not his) and more on giving them
> advice on the best practices.
> 

+1

I'd like to add that they may be badgered just as hard from the other
side not to do too much in this regard; i.e. registrars telling them
"Don't tell me how to do my work, even if you think it's wrong". Sure,
BCPs may help, but we stopped doing pre-delegation checks for a reason.

As Antoin and others have already mentioned, we still do checks, and we
inform on a number (but not all) of them. One thing we found (at least
that has been my conclusion) is that 'they are doing it better' works
*much* better than 'you are doing it wrong'.

Removing delegations because of a lame delegation is highly likely to be
out of the question.

Jelte