IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Wed, 11 November 2015 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 947FB1B310A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:53:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 s2bgsW39cqbm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C7FF1B3102 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.143] (unknown [31.15.50.130]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 124861FEAD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:53:25 +0100 (CET)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:53:25 +0100
Message-ID: <314D2303-5654-4BA3-A190-F658DAF60E31@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20151111064744.GW18315@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <20151105235402.39FFC3BF2F29@rock.dv.isc.org> <20151110152511.6f1a1c20@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20151110204330.C47C63C7D699@rock.dv.isc.org> <7B4B7DEA-C705-437E-8BC1-64D96D55014E@vpnc.org> <0F2DD78A-69C4-49DA-936F-C32D0FC97CC2@rfc1035.com> <5373DDAB-1ED2-489B-AB62-BA7CF6D3DB48@frobbit.se> <20151111064744.GW18315@mournblade.imrryr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_9CBAB28A-3193-4C91-AD86-F0C1D5147D2C_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5164)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Ofp5DWjDJgNJHBDGxspk-4QMezs>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:53:28 -0000

On 11 Nov 2015, at 7:47, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:

> It may not be possible for everyone to agree on a comprehensive
> set of 'wrongs' with no omissions, but it should be possible to
> get consensus on a core set of 'wrongs' that are not controversial.

Yes and no. I think going for a minimum will be a good goal, but for example to have lame delegations must by definition be allowed, as some registration policies do require delegation (i.e. NS records). So people add NS records in parent zone, but nothing responds there. Until policy allows registration without delegation, you will see lame delegations.

   Patrik

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status