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

[Rubens Kuhl <[e-mail]>]

> Em 6 de mai. de 2023, à(s) 12:20, John Levine <[e-mail]> escreveu:
> 
> It appears that Joe Abley  <[e-mail]> said:
>> Pre-delegation checks add friction to the domain registration process. They further complicate the commuications between different actors in the commercial graph
>> (registrars, registries, resellers, DNS operators, hosting companies) and introduce delay and manual intervention into what might otherwise be a fairly automated
>> or at least automatable process. ...
> 
> Thirty years ago, when you did domain registrations by e-mail, the
> registry which was then called Network Solutions did indeed check that
> your name servers were active before delegating the domain. It was not
> an accident that they stopped doing so, and it seems vanishingly
> unlikely that any gTLD registry would do so now, regardless of
> what people here might think.

Actually, there is one gTLD that does that: .rio. A domain can be registered without working DNS servers, but it won’t be delegated until DNS servers answer with authority for that domain. 

.rio also checks DNS authority when a domain updates its delegation set, and promptly denies the update if not (different from the create where there is a continuous check waiting for authority to appear). 

But this is likely due to .rio getting infrastructure from a ccTLD operator that happens to do similar checks… although in .br lack of DNS authority prevents registration, different from .rio. 

It’s not that pre-delegation checks add friction per se; it does if TLDs A, B, C do not perform them and TLDs X, Y and Z perform such checks. This makes other parties in network the graph (regardless of them being commercial, education, non-profit etc.) expect one behavior or the other, and fail in some regard when the practice of a TLD is different. 

But I will add one other party to the network graph that benefits from pre-delegation checks: Internet connectivity providers. Lame delegation makes DNS recursive servers to spend more resources to get no usable response, transferring load from registries/DNS operators/hosting companies to them. 

So, it would be really interesting if a standards-track document defines which behavior to follow so everyone can sing the same song. I just don’t see that happening. 


Rubens