Moin!
On 7 Nov 2015, at 18:20, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
But that’s not the point.
The point is that we need consensus on criteria for what is good and
what is bad DNS(SEC).
Isn't that what the RFCs describe. Is there really a point where someone
disagrees?
I agree with you that there is no incentive for parked domains to get
DNS right.
In fact, some registries like .nl allow registration without
delegation, which is perfectly fine for those domains. It keeps the
trash out the DNS.
But we need consensus on what good and bad DNS operation is so
registrants have a choice.
For a domain that I don’t use, or only sometimes, some are perfectly
happy with a dns-operator that charges $1,- a year but has a "DNS
goodness” score of only 10%.
For a domain that is my principal business, I need a dns-operator (and
a registrar, and registry, and ICANN!) that has a score of at least
99.999% compliance, even if it costs me $100,- a year.
I don't think that this is what Mark wants.
The question is: What is is compliant, and how can we test that
against a set of known errors so we can give them a score that has the
consensus of us DNS experts.
My understanding was that Mark was testing protocol compliance and not
operational aspects. I agree that there might be good and bad
operations, but defining this is really hard as there are some many ways
to operate DNS.
And as Mark mentioned, many errors mean operational cost one way or
another, not only for the name servers of the zone itself, but also
for it’s parents and resolvers of ISP’s.
I know that. I worked at ISPs and now work at vendor that delivers
software mainly for ISPs.
Parent and child dns-operators can make their own choice in business
model in which they trade operational cost against profit and trust,
but we need an independent set of criteria for those TLD's and
dns-operators that want the reputation to be at the "good DNS” side
of that business model. And for that to be possible, we need ICANN and
so everyone below the root to be that good. We cannot let the weakest
link determine the maximum quality of the DNS.
Even if you have ICANN there are some that don't want to bend to the
ICANN rules and this is an IETF draft.
Perhaps a personal question to you: What score would you like the .de
domain (not zone!) to have? And why? What would you do if they only
scored 40% ?
You really have to ask Peter as he is "responsible" for that ;-). The
.de zone I believe is pretty good as it always had pre delegation tests
(sometimes with strange rules), but the problem for people on the
resolving side isn't really if the domain is 40% or 99% good. As long as
it is not 100% which IMHO it never will be we have to do something to
make the 1% incorrect behaviour to work.
So long
-Ralf
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
