Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

> On 12 May 2023, at 11:35, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Mark Andrews  <[e-mail]> said:
>>> Oh, I completely agree.  My point was just that even in the root which is small and you
>>> would hope would change slowly, it's still a challenge to track what's lame.
>> 
>> It’s not a challenge to track what is lame.  It’s dead simple.  You just have to look.  Getting
>> it addressed is the challenge.
> 
> Yeah, that's a better way to put it. But the main point still stands,
> that it would be a signficant operational change to insist that all
> delegated NS be active when delegated, and even moreso to insist that
> they continue to be active.

No, it is not a “significant” change.  It should just be a minor extension
of the existing requirement to keep the NS and glue records consistent.

Even if it was you just introduce it with a soft start.  Just start checking
the delegations of every TLD like zone then report the broken servers
publicly and email the contacts for the delegation.  The tools for checking
already exist.

RFC 4034, 4.2.2.

As the last installation step, the delegation NS RRs and glue RRs
necessary to make the delegation effective should be added to the parent
zone. The administrators of both zones should insure that the NS and
glue RRs which mark both sides of the cut are consistent and remain so.

> Back in the 1990s when you registered names by email, NetSol checked
> that your NS were active before accepting them, but that was back when
> it was normal for the back and forth for registering a name to take a
> week.
> 
> R's,
> John

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]