Hi Wes. On 30 Apr 2020, at 17:41, Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote:
> I've just pushed the -04 version of the draft that has a fairly major
> overhaul of the problem statement. I'd appreciate if it helps clarify
> the technical reasons why deployment of the bit would be beneficial in
> ways that are unrelated to contractual type controls. I'll include the
> first three sections below, which are the parts that really changed.
Thanks! It's on the list :-)
>> Perhaps more substantially, but with more rapid oscillation of hands,
>> I am concerned that this draft, if adopted, will gain legitimacy in
>> policy circles where it might actually do damage.
>
> I can't speculate whether zones would be under increased market pressure
> for a DNS feature you clearly indicate might be desired. I find this
> statement that "this looks too helpful to some people; let's not do it"
> fascinating :-)
Well, no. I was really concerned that it would be of no help at all whilst
simultaneously sounding tremendously necessary ("transparency!"), and that it
might have collateral damage.
>> An example might be where there is contractual or market pressure to
>> require it for TLDs where its effect might be to cause suppressed
>> orphan glue to break otherwise functional delegations.
>
> I'd love to see some registration point cases where this technique would
> cause harm.
Well, for example there are some 28,000 examples of orphan glue in the ORG
zone. There are about 93,000 across all gTLDs. I haven't analysed these orphan
glue records in any useful detail (that's on the list, too :-) but I'm wary of
assuming that they could all be safely suppressed without harming any other
delegation.
Anyway, thanks for the edits; I will send comments back to the list when I've
had a chance to read them thoroughly.
Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
