Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:29 PM Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2021, at 16:15, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >> * Section 5: Promoted or orphan glue
> >> The considerations for handling orphan glue will be different for a
> >> TLD vs a lower level zone within a domain. I would think that orphan
> >> glue in a TLD context should go away when a zone is deleted/expired.
> >> Maybe even have sanity checking to prevent such an operation.
> >
> > This is a political question, not a technical one. If the DNS operator
> > has external knowledge that the orphan's domain has not been delegated
> > to someone else, you can make a case to leave the glue. The usual
> > example is a name in a TLD which has expired but is still in the grace
> period,
> > but it can happen anywhere someone delegates names; I run registries
> > at the third level like watkins-glen.ny.us.
> >
> > I don't see how we can offer any more than general and vague advice here.
>
> I agree, and I think the best plan is to remove any mention of it. Orphan
> glue is by definition not glue. It once was glue, but that has no bearing
> on how to craft a referral response. It's out of scope for this document.
>
> At best, I think the term "orphan glue" belongs in a taxonomy concerned
> with registry terminology, not DNS terminology. And although one of the
> ways in which domain registries publish information is in the DNS, it's
> rarely a good idea to conflate the two.
>
>
I'd like to point out a (now moot) nit to the original comment(s): Instead
of TLD, it is probably more correct to refer to "Registry". E.g. in John
L's response about operating a third-level Registry, it isn't a TLD but is
still a Registry.

(I only point this out so that in future, any commentary that starts out
with someone writing "TLD", that they might correct themselves and write
"Registry".)

Brian