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

Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no> Wed, 11 November 2015 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <he@uninett.no>
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 85E8B1A8912 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:44:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 wuaoKsjff3K7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:0:21e:4fff:feed:ced]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944311A88FF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [158.38.62.77]) by smistad.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A747C3D0B3; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:44:04 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:44:04 +0100
Message-Id: <20151111.114404.231564003.he@uninett.no>
To: paf@frobbit.se
From: Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <F2D1058D-0CA0-4017-8DEE-6219212AA0D6@frobbit.se>
References: <314D2303-5654-4BA3-A190-F658DAF60E31@frobbit.se> <20151111.111735.41519120.he@uninett.no> <F2D1058D-0CA0-4017-8DEE-6219212AA0D6@frobbit.se>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.6 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/q5yUpiIjH-4fHk4USJQiW-vK68M>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
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 10:44:07 -0000

>> Does the scenario look like this?
>>
>> * Client asks to registrar to set up frobbit.se
>
> Yes, someone want to register frobbit.se domain name. For pure
> IPR reasons. It should not resolve.

Ah, OK.  Then this is first and foremost a registry policy issue:
do you in your policy support registration of a place-holder /
blocker entries without any associated DNS information or not.

The registry in my backyard doesn't support place-holder
registrations, insists on delegation-only DNS information, and
insists on this being fully operational with a minimum of two
name servers before registration can complete.

If your naming policy of your registry doesn't formally allow
place-holder registrations, insists on delegation-only DNS
information, but makes no checks of the supplied information at
the time of registration, I agree that this will more or less
automatically create lame delegations.  That doesn't mean the
resulting setup in the DNS is "OK" from a DNS-technical
standpoint.  However, as a registry or policy body for the
registry you're not forced to put yourself in this particular
position.  (I might have used stronger words...)

> Other TLDs are different.

That we can agree on :)

Regards,

- Håvard