> On 12 May 2023, at 12:09, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > > Well, OK, you do that, half the emails bounce, half of what's delivered is > reported as spam, and the third half are ignored. Now what?
In practice it isn’t quite as bad as that. Require registrars to refuse renewals until the issues are addressed. This is no different to not getting your car’s registration renewed until it has past its safety inspection. Mark > Regards, > John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly -- 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
