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

Lawrence Conroy <> Wed, 11 November 2015 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5F71B359C for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:22:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNzjUiQBHNWJ for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212D11B3595 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8B83F990C; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:22:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UpWzpAC5hGme; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:22:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41CA73F9905; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:22:06 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Lawrence Conroy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:22:05 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: dnsop WG <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:22:10 -0000

Hi Patrik, Jim, folks,

Not an IETF thing, but ISTR that the RRR model can make pushing error reports difficult:
 e.g., if Registry runs tests and finds problems, the Registrar may be unhappy for an email
 to be sent from Registry direct to "the Registrar's" customer.

Quite apart from anything else, do delegated domain DNS validity checks figure within gTLDs?
 If not, then any USE of such a BCP is going to go to ICANN (and take years and years and ...), no?
 ISTM that the IETF isn't in a position to force its suggestions through the 'industry'.

all the best,

On 11 Nov 2015, at 06:25, Patrik Fältström <> wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2015, at 22:24, Jim Reid wrote:
>>> Or perhaps we should not.
>> +1
> This discussion on making tests is coming back now and then. In RIPE, in IETF, in discussions around TLDs (specifically ccTLDs).
> I have run one such initiative myself.
> Everything has so far collapsed into collision between tech people not agreeing on what is right and wrong. It also collapses into clashes between registry policy and the tests made. I.e. just the registration policy is setting blocks and constraints on what tests must be made (or can not be made). And harmonization of such rules is just impossible (we have seen).
> That said, initiatives like the one I did run did push errors (for some definition of errors) from 22% to maybe 17% in .SE and my inspection of the rest say that getting errors down to 15% is possible, but more is very hard.
> And, having a BCP or such that give suggestions on what can be viewed as "correct" would not be bad, but how to use it must be up to the reader.
> I think the IETF should be careful on writing too prescriptive text, I say being one hit by "rfc compliance" people that point at old whois related RFCs that "require" things that in fact is illegal in Sweden. I.e. by being compliant to Swedish law regarding privacy, I violate a very old RFC and because of that I am black listed.
> So be careful.
>   Patrik