On 2012-09-12, at 02:56, Fred Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > But it's silly. And in practice, it leads to all sorts of pathological > aberrations. It leads to example-bank.com... or any other large, > well-funded organization which is defensively registering domains... > pointing those domains to nameservers which: > > * answer REFUSED > * answer SERVFAIL > * are CNAMEd (for extra credit, the nameservers which are CNAMEd to answer > REFUSED or SERVFAIL) > * answer with CNAMEd domains... regardless of what the delegator > advertises. > > And on. And on.
Your central complaint seems to be that delegations exist which are broken, intentionally or otherwise. It's not clear who you're complaining about, though, or why you care. There is positive pressure to fix errors in the DNS if they matter. If defective delegations are hurting a registry, the registry can push for a policy change which permits them to remove the delegations. If registrants feel pain because people can't resolve their names, no doubt they will arrange for the brokenness to be fixed. If something in the DNS is broken and nobody cares, you can expect it not to be fixed. None of this seems like a real problem, to me. So long as the bits that people care about work, we're golden. Bits that people don't care about can remain broken, because nobody cares. Note that none of this has anything to do with EPP. Joe _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
