Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS

Patrick Mevzek <mevzek@uniregistry.com> Mon, 08 July 2019 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mevzek@uniregistry.com>
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 974C8120333 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.336
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=uniregistry.com
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 LoFlIeTYi0df for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a-mx.uniregistry.com (a.mx.uniregistry.net [64.96.177.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ED37120094 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Abuse: Forward to abuse@uniregistry.com with full headers
X-Virus-Scanned: Content filter at a-mx.uniregistry.net
Powered-By: https://www.uniregistry.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniregistry.com; s=bravo; t=1562624097; bh=W4963Wp+n1zwykIDvt1DIpAw1FVP1UfCBzH1f4WJ61E=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=JhmnPkW35d1OQ2CgI/V75tAxu2UdygaIZ1GeKJx2Sf6LobBK7iexnqOOK92uvS3T4 vKGljiFf7STjiACjHB7xVDD5FZcbXjPUj1iAW+RX54oP0Um3i3DsotgqwEh5zjAu4l fMFHGcBhLDD1DlkIwgH2KcDryq8W/cWqt+q72XFxEgIMO9dD5Qjr4upFhO7xWHv0XE pTaep3LkhMEnw+UQrR4oURLIpYMvbU0vNhZvavM0ph1wxsvBJVyYkk2aYmLf6/lWwm Q9XtUxulwjHt8/B7jwwrFkwauoQyuj/WZMGL5D3kvpW2rEEYee6i/dN1uqq3Kql6IS Antwlu0y/Iwaw==
Received: from PatrickM.local ([66.54.123.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by a-mx.uniregistry.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id x68MEtJ9034835 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:14:56 GMT
To: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <1CA7BF1B-DF50-443B-9219-55259835FE23@bambenekconsulting.com> <3f3b0fcd-e09d-be29-7b85-ceb34a2e10f7@uniregistry.com> <9ED809E4-8121-4636-87D4-3A062FCC8C80@bambenekconsulting.com>
From: Patrick Mevzek <mevzek@uniregistry.com>
Organization: Uniregistry
Message-ID: <51595f52-74d7-dc43-4f91-042448e2cda9@uniregistry.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 17:14:54 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ED809E4-8121-4636-87D4-3A062FCC8C80@bambenekconsulting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/uVbqobjEmp9B7dr7B6r_5jqjiKE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 22:15:07 -0000

On 2019-07-08 17:05 -0500, John Bambenek <jcb@bambenekconsulting.com> 
wrote:> For domains with no NS records? Who cares, they aren’t in actual 
use. (Or if they are something is broken or more likely malicious so 
block it).

They could be (in use), at some point. See past "fast flux" cases.

WHOIS was invented to be able to contact "someone" for any kind of 
problems, technical or administrative. A domain not having NS records 
may be a technical problem, or not, but if it is a problem who to 
contact if that information lives in the DNS itself?

> Yes, the onus is on domain owners (and that requires consensus and adoption which are not given but why its being brought up here).

So you are expecting registrants to abide by this, and then all DNS 
providers to update their web interface so that people will be able to 
enter those records? What incentives will they all have to do that?

I am probably less optimist than you.

But my understanding is that it seems you are trying to publish some 
data to derive some "reputation" based on it, instead of really data to 
be able to contact people. They are different goals probably.
-- 
Patrick Mevzek