Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks

Joe Abley <> Sat, 06 May 2023 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AC9C151524 for <>; Sat, 6 May 2023 16:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCKlhRZnEZ5d for <>; Sat, 6 May 2023 16:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA59C14CEE3 for <>; Sat, 6 May 2023 16:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 23:26:45 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=protonmail; t=1683415619; x=1683674819; bh=7TLeQ4yqVLgW0/z37IFsN3S9h/phb0sPmEOZ0WHYZkc=; 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=XdIPDGxoc32hH8g47UrhZk8Su3MRhAczN5ZJ7RtqAbZBalRpWdP47Hur/dN9xWb3D P4JS0e3OukLhRJLFJH/bqINbg/II6GbvqEaoAHi/TO0zpDPo0P6ALxmJzK2yqp2ge/ eH6epj5yNnkWkonfR5VGX4ULCUmEwUV1YoqPB55FH48ll2RdPfDYHS1PrWcawF1fCP S932PPqoEWsi1jwn99YBD0Sfrnh2b3o8g7SXj2bLPY5oSBrI83uEg/MG82L453hWTI CPrg1c1tMDMkFuvVp/v8jWDKleEQWRWIxWoifYLpL0VRnlb7y1z9WHAGK5bhejJEdC ldUwH2SqjPfWg==
From: Joe Abley <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Feedback-ID: 73263797:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_5x9slxLtKyr3maL3mg6Y9NHJC7NuxEyPnox7XUjBkI"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 23:27:07 -0000

On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 19:10, Havard Eidnes <[](mailto:On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 19:10, Havard Eidnes <<a href=)> wrote:

> So, you're arguing that it would be "causing too much work"(?) for
> the registry to insist on having the registrant stand up a couple of
> public name servers to register the publically visible version of a
> domain? Really?

No. I'm predicting that finding agreement on the right technical criteria and appropriate actions will be difficult, and finding agreement on the policy side across many different policy regimes will be more difficult.

The difficulties I described were intended to illustrate that this is stuff is not necessarily easy, and that there are factors beyond the technical to think about. Whether it's too much work is a question for the working group, but I think it's a reasonable question.