> On 12 May 2023, at 11:35, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > It appears that Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> said: >>> Oh, I completely agree. My point was just that even in the root which is >>> small and you >>> would hope would change slowly, it's still a challenge to track what's lame. >> >> It’s not a challenge to track what is lame. It’s dead simple. You just >> have to look. Getting >> it addressed is the challenge. > > Yeah, that's a better way to put it. But the main point still stands, > that it would be a signficant operational change to insist that all > delegated NS be active when delegated, and even moreso to insist that > they continue to be active.
No, it is not a “significant” change. It should just be a minor extension of the existing requirement to keep the NS and glue records consistent. Even if it was you just introduce it with a soft start. Just start checking the delegations of every TLD like zone then report the broken servers publicly and email the contacts for the delegation. The tools for checking already exist. RFC 4034, 4.2.2. As the last installation step, the delegation NS RRs and glue RRs necessary to make the delegation effective should be added to the parent zone. The administrators of both zones should insure that the NS and glue RRs which mark both sides of the cut are consistent and remain so. > Back in the 1990s when you registered names by email, NetSol checked > that your NS were active before accepting them, but that was back when > it was normal for the back and forth for registering a name to take a > week. > > R's, > John -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
