The issue of collecting IP address for name servers in the context of
the APWG draft is not about glue. The issue is not glue but actions
taken to thwart malicious activity.
At 6:46 PM -0500 11/27/07, Brian Dickson wrote:
And that glue is needed only, strictly speaking, when the NS FQDN is a
subordinate of the (parent) zone.
"Strictly speaking" is incorrect in the above sentence, "generally
speaking" is more appropriate.
Sometimes the glue isn't really necessary, if the FQDN of the NS is served
by zone whose own NS records don't need glue, e.g. are served by entirely
out-of-zone name servers.
And that is what I suggest s/strictly/generally/, it seems we
understand this so I don't think we need any lectures on glue here.
Especially as that is not the focus of the suggestion to collect IP
addresses.
So, capturing its IP *might* make sense. But, even if it exists, it isn't
authoritative, so likely won't (or shouldn't) be used.
What I think is happening in this thread is that a suggestion has
been made in a registry forum (ICANN/APWG) that has a brush with DNS
and we have tried to make it a DNS matter. It's not a DNS matter,
it's the collection of data related to DNS that is not intended to be
in the DNS, no more so that the telephone number of the billing
contact for the name.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Think glocally. Act confused.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
