Håvard, ccNSO has no role to play here.
Each ccTLD makes its own rules, and not that it matters, being tiny, .NA does require working name servers (at registration, and when we check on it). el On 05/05/2023 19:01, Havard Eidnes wrote: >>> I imagine that others also spend time on sorting out these entirely >>> unnecessary issues. If guidance were developed on delegation >>> acceptance checks, >> >> Well, yes... but where? > > ccNSO, perhaps? > > My advice would be to only enforce checks where violations would > negatively impact operations (e.g. disallow lame delegation setups), > and not enforce pure "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" > requirements where doing so contributes minimal to no improvement > operationally. > >> To me it feels like the IETF would be the right place to discuss and >> develop the guidance (personally I think that a parent should check if the >> name servers that are being proposed actually answer for the domain[0], and >> strongly suggest (but do not prevent) that that be fixed[1]. > ... >> [0]: Some, including myself, would call this lame, but... > > Yup. > > I personally think that if a ccTLD insists on non-lame delegations at > the time of registration or update, I would not object. > >> [1]: As an example, I have a-random-test-domain.net pointing to >> nameservers which have no idea about this domain - and I did that >> intentionally... > > There's of course always the option of doing your own dirty work in a > child zone of your own properly delegated and operational domain. > > Regards, > > - Håvard -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist e...@lisse.na / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
