At 2:58 PM +0100 11/9/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I thought that there was a wide agreement in the TLD community that it
was bad practice to keep IP addresses of name servers, except when it
was necessary for the glue?
I can't speak for "wide agreement" but generally, reducing the amount
of unnecessary data is a good thing. The problem is that what is
deemed necessary changes over time.
At 5:31 PM -0500 11/12/07, Joe Abley wrote:
Is this not also codified in the EPP specification? I thought there was
language to the effect that you MUST specify one or more addresses for
host objects which are subordinate to the registry apex, but that you
MUST NOT specify addresses for hosts which are not.
RFC 4932, Section 2.5 may be what you want.
# When a host object is provisioned for use as a DNS name server, IP
# addresses SHOULD be required only as needed to generate DNS glue
# records.
I'd add two caveats - not all TLDs do EPP. And that SHOULD was borne
in an environment in which registry operations were the central
theme, not defending against malicious network behavior.
I went hunting through RFCs to try and find text to quote, but came up
empty (although admittedly I only skimmed through the text). Perhaps I
was looking in the wrong place? Or am I just confused?
Confused, certainly. We know you Joe.
I don't mean to say that we want to collect the IP addresses as the
ICANN APWG draft suggests. I am just saying that it shouldn't be
shot down *only* because collecting the IP addresses has heretofore
been something we don't cotton to.
(Oh, heretofore = up to now; cotton to = we approve of.)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Think glocally. Act confused.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
