IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Thu, 04 May 2023 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49703C14CF1A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2023 12:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTTDNqD6N0ep for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2023 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-4018.proton.ch (mail-4018.proton.ch [185.70.40.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCF98C14CEE3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2023 12:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 19:39:54 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=protonmail; t=1683229212; x=1683488412; bh=Slucm/LFhF1+zjsuuU20AUsKqL46rHg4ei+srp49YlE=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=EItXYQPptBg9RjJBbODJYGTQAaYxY2vwLSHiP0ek2x/Cj7XuoGxBauCSZcAh9sIdX ayU7yjqNZLdtA/h172PGfj1SkRpFtlNaBlGBZObqN6pQXeG2+7VC1nAqj6YQlX7ghc 2e07kjPfkzBNEf5SV8BtbvGHCdLpE+rqgQB9vb2k+KKCqif2HEQm8eKYWXZRllsQ66 bOZPQh98Nv1RMTNePFyTR5KLnE8+tYdz2oi6woCoUfHjOURkZ6Q5Vue/0KINO9XP0x LWm1hphrC2occrgkkskBZWl6TlUhM8abU7Mj62WLSUjHQd9IBS5dB0265dp9H7KpsJ iZYW16/KAeWtA==
To: Havard Eidnes <he=40uninett.no@dmarc.ietf.org>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: warren@kumari.net, m9p@india.emu.st, dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C1D31FB2-1614-45F2-8D39-23D690D664A0@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20230504.200747.619569100111463947.he@uninett.no>
References: <1C10367C-B890-426F-A4F8-2D68E903ED39@icann.org> <0.2.0-final-1683191254.797-0xa08e34@qmda.emu.st> <CAHw9_iLyz4dhjmXm=eeqiVqQWOjYOgs45NbCtRtvrYpTFQHz=w@mail.gmail.com> <20230504.200747.619569100111463947.he@uninett.no>
Feedback-ID: 62430589:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NR2dYMZaEIrxx08sjEGC--4FLiQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 04 May 2023 19:40:20 -0000

On May 4, 2023, at 14:07, Havard Eidnes <he=40uninett.no@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>> As an example, it's quite common for people to register a
>> domain and point the DNS at some nameservers which they don't
>> control, and have no relationship with.
> 
> If this is common, I'm abhorred.

I think these days it's less common than it used to be, but that's mainly because registrar web pages have become quite resistant to the idea that anybody should want to use their own nameservers and instead to default to nameservers operated by the company acting as registrar, not because anybody has seen the light and come to their senses.


Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email