Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

2023-05-06 Thread John Levine
It appears that Dr Eberhard W Lisse said: >The IANA Function Operator does so for all ccTLDs (which would imply all TLDs). Indeed, but some of them are lame anyway. Here's today's report: FAIL ne. bow.rain.fr. 194.51.3.49 All nameservers failed to answer the query ne. IN SOA: Server 194.51.3.

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks

2023-05-06 Thread Joe Abley
On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 19:10, Havard Eidnes <[h...@uninett.no](mailto:On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 19:10, Havard Eidnes < wrote: > So, you're arguing that it would be "causing too much work"(?) for > the registry to insist on having the registrant stand up a couple of > public name servers to register

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks

2023-05-06 Thread Havard Eidnes
> Pre-delegation checks add friction to the domain registration > process. They further complicate the commuications between > different actors in the commercial graph (registrars, registries, > resellers, DNS operators, hosting companies) and introduce delay > and manual intervention into what mig

[DNSOP] FW: Approved: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-25.txt

2023-05-06 Thread Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Hi DNSOP WG, I just wanted to let you know that I have approved draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-25 and hence it will move on to the RFC editor queue. I appreciate that this document hasn't been the easiest to move through the process but I hope that it will prove beneficial to IETF and the DNSOP WG in

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

2023-05-06 Thread Benno Overeinder
Dear WG, The extended WGLC rfc8499bis has been closed. With the specific question from the chairs, the WG did not find consensus on either of the two proposed definitions of the term "lame delegation". In one subthread of the discussion there was some convergence towards a definition, but i

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks

2023-05-06 Thread Dr Eberhard W Lisse
HÃ¥vard, 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 th

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

2023-05-06 Thread Dr Eberhard W Lisse
The IANA Function Operator does so for all ccTLDs (which would imply all TLDs). el On 06/05/2023 17:20, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Joe Abley said: >> Pre-delegation checks add friction to the domain registration >> process. They further complicate the commuications between different

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

2023-05-06 Thread John Levine
It appears that Joe Abley said: >Pre-delegation checks add friction to the domain registration process. They >further complicate the commuications between different actors in the >commercial graph >(registrars, registries, resellers, DNS operators, hosting companies) and >introduce delay and m