In message <[email protected]>, Andrew Sullivan writes: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 09:20:33AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > Allowing a registration without NS records would fix this and other > > problems like defensive registrations. > > This has nothing to do with "allowing registration without NS > records". All the registries in question do in fact permit that.
Then why does't the registry remove all the records below a delegation and any records that refer to them from the published zone when a delegation is removed? Rinse, lather, repeat for any delegations that now no longer exist in the published zone. The zone will be re-instated or the NS records will be updated to refer to nameservers in a different zone. What is currently being done leaves a zone that "works" some of the time for some servers. Once a recursive server learns that the name servers don't exist (any dual stack recursive server unless there is both A and AAAA glue) then the zone fully breaks for that server. Mark > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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
