Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

[Peter Thomassen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

On 5/5/23 20:45, Joe Abley wrote:
> Pre-delegation checks add friction to the domain registration process.
[...]
> To look at it another way, why would we give authority to a third party to break our domains just because they are not fully-informed about how we are using them?

+1

My suggestion was not to create guidance or a best practice document for pre-delegation checks, but rather that *if* such guidance were developed, it should very prominently say what *not* to do, precisely because too many checks cause too much friction.

> And lastly, even if a delegation is genuinely broken and useless for all the world, and nobody cares enough to fix it, what harm does it do? What is the motivation to find a fix? A dribble of extra traffic relating to a mainly-unused domain to a nameserver that is already over-provisioned doesn't seem very compelling.

As a first reaction, I also agree with this (although I may be convinced by more data on cost/harm caused by the extra traffic, as Brian was hinting at).

> Even if I thought this was a problem that needed a solution, I don't think the solution is likely to be easy.

Yes. It may be easier to just arrive at a document advising against certain checks, that is, a Worst Current Practice doc ;-)

Peter

-- 
https://desec.io/