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

Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Thu, 12 November 2015 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <el@lisse.NA>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018361B2F8B for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:43:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.491
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_DR=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wP-y2s1rZbgG for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2151B2F8A for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:43:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9252156A383; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:43:13 +0200 (WAST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XghVWiRb5JN8; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:43:11 +0200 (WAST)
Received: from practice2.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DC4156A37C; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:43:02 +0200 (WAST)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Message-ID: <5644A571.3000807@lisse.NA>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:42:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv: Gecko/20060308 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: el@lisse.NA
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:43:23 -0000


don't forget there are ccTLD registries run by third parties for
purely economic reasons, some better some worse.  And a particular
compatriot comes to mind :-)-O

Then there are a number of smaller ccTLDs which are overwhelmed by
all of this.  Never mind those who only answer their email when they
get offered travel funding.

And then there is not only the purely technical DNS accuracy but the
quality of the Registrant data is often very poor, Whether this is
published in the WHOIS or not, this could and should be addressed at
the same time.

But what really is lacking is not only a BCP that addresses all of
this but also an Open Source reference implementation of a quality
that is actually usable.

If I could auto-generate a report for each of or Registrars that
lists all issues we have identified there are some who will try and
fix it because they like to do proper work.

Some will need a little name and shame.

Some I can motivate with our policies which they have contractually
bound themselves to.

Other ccTLDs might not be able to do that, or might choose not to do

But unless we have some actual tools this remains an academic


On 2015-11-12 16:13, Jelte Jansen wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 01:30 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>> (as chair)
>> I was the one who told Mark I liked the document but we needed to
>> do less badgering of TLDs (my words, not his) and more on giving
>> them advice on the best practices.
> +1
> I'd like to add that they may be badgered just as hard from the
> other side not to do too much in this regard; i.e. registrars
> telling them "Don't tell me how to do my work, even if you think
> it's wrong".  Sure, BCPs may help, but we stopped doing
> pre-delegation checks for a reason.
> As Antoin and others have already mentioned, we still do checks,
> and we inform on a number (but not all) of them.  One thing we
> found (at least that has been my conclusion) is that 'they are
> doing it better' works *much* better than 'you are doing it
> wrong'.
> Removing delegations because of a lame delegation is highly likely
> to be out of the question.
> Jelte

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el@lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/