On Jan 11 2014, Peter Koch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 08:49:15AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
From an operations point of view, this TXT is problematic in that it
shows that the zone operator is willing to break its agreement with ICANN
without notice. They agreed to only put the following in the TLD zone:
? Apex SOA record.
? Apex NS records and in-bailiwick glue for the TLD?s DNS servers.
there is no such thing.
They broke that agreement as soon as they could. Which other agreements
with ICANN are they willing to break? Or, if this really is a simple
mistake, which other simple mistakes are they willing to make until
ICANN tells them not to?
Take a breath - or let the compliance jihad begin:
ninja. 0 IN TYPE65534 \# 5 08D7050001
ninja. 0 IN TYPE65534 \# 5 0818510001
That's clearly an unintended consequence of using BIND's signing
mechanisms. But what about the simply informative/debugging:
kiwi. 86400 IN TXT "Generation Time: 1389539700"
As regards the TXT records for berlin & wien, I don't really understand
what "unauthorised entry" is meant to mean. Not that it matters.
I hope we aren't going to see TXT records containing fatuous legal
disclaimers added to DNS responses in the annoying way that they are
too often used in e-mail... :-)
--
Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Email: c...@ucs.cam.ac.uk Roger Needham Building, 7 JJ Thomson Avenue,
Phone: +44 1223 334715 Cambridge CB3 0RB, United Kingdom.
_______________________________________________
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
dns-jobs mailing list
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
