On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 02:42:25PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > In response to ICANN essentially removing most of the fields in WHOIS
> > for domain records, Richard Porter and myself created a draft of an
> > implementation putting these records into DNS TXT records. It would require
> > self-disclosure which mitigates the sticky issues of GDPR et al. Would
> > love to get feedback.
>
> Good in principle, but the information in whois has always been, at least
> nominally, third-party vetted. This would not be. So my worry is that
> either it would get no uptake, or it would get filled with bogus
> information. It’s a little hard for me to imagine it being widely used
> for valid information, though that would of course be the ideal outcome.
>
> So, no problem with this in principle, but I’d like to see some degree of
> consensus that user-asserted content is sufficient for people’s needs.
When locating contacts for domains with stale TLSA records, I find each of:
1. postmaster@
2. SOA RR 'mrname'
3. WHOIS technical contact when published
4. Contact data on the domain's website
to work a non-trivial fraction of the time. Between them, most
domains turn out to be reachable. The SOA 'mrname' is closest to
the subject of this thread, and while often unusable[1], is also
often enough the only working contact.
Perhaps the SOA 'mrname' could get more publicity as worthy of
proper upkeep. If you want more info from the registrant, send a
query there. For data kept by the registrar, we're often out of
luck these days.
--
Viktor.
[1] Even when notionally the right address, the SOA 'mrname' is not
always read, and may (e.g. <[email protected]>) simply bounce all messages
because the mailbox is over quota. On the other hand some other
"provider" contact addresses work reliably.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
