[DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 05 November 2015 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 CD9451B378F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:54:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 RNXU2UByalbF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD95A1B378A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9516A3493C2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:54:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C66160077 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:54:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB497160076 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:54:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id YzuZ_hA1Q3ta for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:54:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c122-106-161-187.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.161.187]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B224160031 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:54:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39FFC3BF2F29 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:54:02 +1100 (EST)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:54:02 +1100
Message-Id: <20151105235402.39FFC3BF2F29@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/CQH1Xes1yzWOwkMFsYcA-IPALTM>
Subject: [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, 05 Nov 2015 23:54:07 -0000

	I keep getting told the IETF can't tell people what to do
	but that is *exactly* what we do do when we issue a BCP.
	We tell people what best current practice is and ask them
	to follow it.

	Today we have TLDs that do perform all sorts of checks on
	servers they delegate zones to and some do inform the
	operators of those zones that they have errors.  Those
	checks cover in part tests described in
	draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue.

	So do we adopt this or do we continue to lie to ourselves
	about what BCP actually do?

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE:	+61 2 9871 4742		         INTERNET: marka@isc.org