In message <[email protected]>, Paul Wout ers writes: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Tony Finch wrote: > > > What are the arguments against using somthing like RFC 5011 to > > automatically update DS records? (If you can do that I suppose > > you could update the rest of the delegation too.) > > "Timers vs Triggers". Look through the archive. > > In short, RFC5011 puts the error of not catching up at the parent. > Lawyers (and some TLDs) don't like that, and prefer children push updates > to the parent instead. > > Paul
Unfortunately we all know how well that works for glue NS records and glue address records. It might keep the lawyers happy but it doesn't help the stability of the global DNS. Keeping delegation accurate is a shared responsability according to RFC 1034. Unfortunately lots of registries don't appear to care about it. That said I still think it should be a push from the child with the parent running regular consistancy checks on the delegation information and chasing up inconsitancies. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
